\:"f 


LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Class 


>v 


THE  LIFE 


OF 


STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS, 


JAMES  W.  SHEAHAN. 


NEW    YORK: 

HARPER    &    BROTHERS,    PUBLISHERS, 

FBANKLIN    SQUARE. 

1860. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  sixty,  by 

HARPER    &    BROTHERS, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Southern  District  of  New 

York. 


PREFACE. 


IN  the  following  pages  it  is  proposed  to  present  as  full 
and  as  complete  an  account  of  the  life  and  public  services 
of  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  of  Illinois,  as  the  limits  of  this 
volume  will  allow.  The  events  of  the  last  six  years  have 
given  to  his  name  a  world- wide  fame,  but  his  entire  public 
career,  as  well  as  the  incidents  of  his  boyhood,  furnish  an 
example  of  success  following  a  determined  purpose  to  ad 
here  to  fixed  political  principles  that  has  rarely  had  its 
equal.  So  intimately  has  Mr.  Douglas  been  connected 
with  the  most  important  legislation,  and  with  the  history 
of  the  political  parties  of  the  last  twenty -five  years,  that  it 
has  been  found  difficult  at  times  to  confine  this  work  to  a 
record  of  his  acts.  But  as  far  as  it  has  been  possible  to  do 
so,  the  writer  has  abstained  carefully  from  comments  upon 
the  acts  of  others,  except  when  to  do  so  was  necessary  to 
present  clearly  and  truthfully  the  history  of  Mr.  Douglas. 

It  is  due  to  candor  to  state  that  these  pages  have  been 
prepared  without  having  been  submitted  to  Mr.  Douglas, 
who,  if  he  read  them  at  all,  will  do  so  for  the  first  time  after 
the  issue  of  the  book.  They  have  been  written  by  one 
who  agrees  fully  with  Mr.  Douglas  in  political  views,  and 
who,  since  the  passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  has 
been  engaged  in  maintaining  before  the  people  of  Illinois 
the  wisdom,  justice,  and  expediency  of  the  policy  of  the 
Democratic  party  upon  the  question  of  Slavery  in  the  Ter 
ritories. 

With  these  words  of  explanation  the  book  is  submitted 
to  those  who  may  choose  to  read  it. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Ancestry. — Death  of  his  Father. — Life  on  a  Farm. — Disappointment. — Ap 
prenticeship. — Enters  School. — Removal  to  Western  New  York. — Studies 
Law. — Taste  for  Politics. — Goes  to  the  West. — Experience  in  Cleveland. 
— Cincinnati. — Louisville. — Trip  to  St.  Louis. — Hon.  E.  C.  Bates. — Il 
linois  at  that  time. — Internal  Improvements. — Douglas  reaches  Jackson 
ville Pagel 

CHAPTER  II. 

Want  of  Money.  —  Goes  to  Winchester.  —  Clerk  of  Auction.  —  Obtains  a 
School. — Murray  M'Connel. — Admitted  to  the  Bar. — Personal  Appear 
ance. — Jackson's  Bank  Policy. — Douglas  proposes  Meeting  to  defend  it. 
"^The  Meeting. — Douglas's  Triumph. — Meeting  of  Legislature. — Douglas 
elected  State's  Attorney. — Early  Friends. — Predictions  of  his  Failure. — 
His  Tact_  and  Ability. — His  Success. — Institutes  Convention  System  in 
Morgan  County. — Its  Success. — Douglas  put  on  Ticket. — Democrats  carry 
the  County 14 

CHAPTER  III. 

Douglas  in  the  Legislature. — Internal  Improvement  System. — National  Poli 
tics. — Reports  against  Divorces. — Proposes  Plan  for  Internal  Improve 
ments.— Is  overruled. — System  adopted. — Appointed  Register  of  Land- 
office. — Gloomy  political  Prospects. — Convention  System  resorted  to. — 
Origin  of  Democratic  State  Organization. — Nominated  for  Congress. — 
Memorable  Canvass. — Is  defeated. — First  State  Convention. — Public  Din 
ner  at  Quincy. — Rejoicings  of  the  Whigs. — Several  Speeches. — The  Case 
of  M'Clernand  and  Field. — Douglas's  Argument. — Supreme  Court. — Cam 
paign  of  1840. — Douglas's  Canvass. — Debates  in  the  Lobby. — Appointed 

"  Secretary  of  State. — History  of  the  "Alien  Suffrage. " — Douglas  presents 
a  hostile  Decision. — The  Vote  saved  for  Van  Buren. — Supreme  Court  re 
organized. — Douglas  elected  to  the  Bench. — His  Circuit. — The  Mormons. 
— Saves  Joe  Smith's  Life. — Gratitude  of  Smith. — Douglas's  Influence  with 
the  Mormons. — His  Popularity  as  a  Judge. — Caucus  for  U.  S.  Senator. — 
Is  defeated  by  one  Vote. — Second  State  Convention. — Nominated  for  Con 
gress. — His  Opponent. — Is  elected. — Violent  Illness. — Leaves  for  Wash 
ington. — Retrospect 27 


Vlll  CONTENTS, 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Early  Support  of  Jackson. — Speech  on  Jackson's  Fine. — Invited  to  Tennes 
see. — Monster  Convention. — Visit  to  the  Hermitage. — Interview  with 
Jackson. — Interesting  Account. — Jackson's  Estimate  of  Douglas's  Speech. 
— Speech  at  Inauguration  of  Jackson's  Statue Page  59 

CHAPTER  V. 

Annexation  of  Texas. — Proposes  36°  30'. — It  is  adopted. — Mexican  War. 
— Great  Speech  on  American  Title,  and  in  Defense  of  the  War. — Treaty 
of  Peace. — Votes  against  it 72 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Foreign  Policy. — Oregon  Boundary. — Democratic  Platform. — 54°  40'. — 
Monroe  Doctrine. — Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty. — Debates  in  Senate. — Speech 
on  Monroe  Doctrine. — Extracts  from  Debates. — Cuba 91 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Territorial  Expansion. — Central  America. — Annexation  of  more  Territory. 
— Friendship  of  England. — Repelling  foreign  Aggressions. — Filibuster- 
ism. — Acquisition  of  Cuba Ill 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Compromise  of  1850. — The  Questions  at  issue. — The  Demands  on  both 
sides. — Henry  Clay  in  the  Senate. — President's  Message. — Plans  of  Com 
promise  by  Houston,  Benton,  Foote,  Bell,  and  Clay. — Abolition  of  Peti 
tions. — Protracted  Debates.— Speeches  by  Clay,  Calhoun,  Webster,  Doug- 
'  las. — Bills  reported  for  California,  the  Territories,  and  Texas  Boundary. 
— Committee  of  Thirteen  appointed. — Why  Clay  reported  Omnibus. — 
Conversation  between  Clay  and  Douglas. — History  of  Omnibus  Bill. — 
Davis's  Amendments. — Restrictions  on  Territorial  Legislation. — Soule's 
Amendment. — Douglas  votes  for  Wilmot  Proviso. — His  Reasons. — Texas 
Boundary. — California. — Death  of  President  Taylor. — Power  of  Terri 
torial  Legislatures. — Extracts  from  Debates. — Destruction  of  the  Omnibus. 
— New  Mexico  put  out. — Texas  put  out. — California  put  -out. — Utah  left 
alone. — 36°  30'  repudiated  by  the  Abolitionists. — Passage  of  the  Bill.  124 

CHAPTER  IX. 

California  Bill  passed. — Texas  Boundary  Bill  passed. — New  Mexico  Bill 
passed. — Fugitive  Slave  Law  passed. — Exclusion  of  free  Negroes  from 
States. — Douglas's  Speech. — Extracts  from  Debates  on  final  Passage  of 
Compromise  Acts. — Douglas  returns  to  Chicago. — The  Abolition  Mob. — 
Defends  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law. — Effects  of  the  Speech. — The  Compro 
mise  in  Congress. — His  Speech  in  1851. — Why  his  Vote  not  recorded  for 
Fugitive  Slave  Law. — Why  he  voted  for  Wilmot  Proviso. — The  Chicago 
Speech. — Defense  of  Fugitive  Slave  Law 155 


CONTENTS.  IX 


y  CHAPTER  X. 

The  Nebraska-Kansas  Bill.  —  Its  Purpose.  —  The  Freedom  of  the  People.  — 
Douglas  reports  the  Bill.  —  The  Missouri  Compromise.  —  Dixon  Amend 
ment.  —  Sumner  Amendment.  —  Bill  taken  up.  —  Chase  asks  Postponement. 

—  Meantime  Chase  issues  his  Address.—  Douglas's  Exposure  of  the  Trick. 

—  Chase's  Apology.  —  Protest  of  New  England  Clergy.  —  Of  the  Chicago 
Clergy.  —  14th  Section.  —  The  Chase  Amendment.  —  Its  Design.  —  Why  it 
was  voted  down.  —  Extracts  from  Speeches  of  Wells,  Toucey,  Hunter,  Cass, 
Atchison.  —  The  Badger  Amendment.  —  Clayton  Amendment.  —  Bill  passed. 

—  History  of  Bill  in  the  House.  —  Returned  to  Senate.  —  Passed.  —  Douglas's 
Speech  of  March  3.—  President  Pierce  and  the  Nebraska  Bill.  ...Page  187 

CHAPTER  XI. 

Anti-Nebraskaism.  —  Know-nothingism.  —  Douglas  denounces  Know-noth- 
ingism  at  Philadelphia.  —  His  Speech  on  that  occasion.  —  Chicago  Mob  in 
1854.  —  Description  of  Scene.  —  Reason  for  refusing  him  a  Hearing.  —  Vio 
lence  at  other  points.  —  The  Election  of  1854.  —  Fusion  Legislature.  —  Elec 
tion  of  Trumbull.  —  Douglas  offered  a  public  Dinner  at  Chicago.  —  His 
Speech  on  that  occasion.  —  Visits  New  Orleans.  —  Denounces  Know-noth 
ings  at  Richmond,  Va  .............................................................  263 

CHAPTER  XII. 

Relief  of  Supreme  Court  of  U.  States.  —  Douglas's  Plan.  —  His  Speech  explain 
ing  it.  —  Plan  rejected.  —  Bill  fails.  —  His  Defense  of  Supreme  Court...  277 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

Kansas  in  1856.  —  President's  Message.  —  Topeka  Constitution.  —  Douglas's 
celebrated  Report,  March  12th.  —  Reports  a  Bill  enabling  Kansas  to  form 
a  State  Government.  —  Extracts  from  Report.  —  His  Speech  on  same  sub 
ject.  —  His  Reply  to  Collamer.  —  Various  Bills  introduced.  —  Toombs's  Bill. 

—  Bill  passed.  —  House  passes  Bill  admitting  Kansas.  —  Senate  amends  it. 

—  Dunn's  Bill  passes  House.  —  Douglas's  Report  upon  it.  —  Laid  on  Table. 

—  Souse  introduces  Legislation  for  Kansas  into  Army  Bill.  —  Disagree 
ment  of  Houses.  —  Congress  adjourns.  —  Army  Bill  lost.  —  Congress  con 
vened,  and  Bill  passed  ........................  .  ...................................  284 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

The  Lecompton  Controversy.  —  Governors  for  Kansas.  —  Governor  Walker.  — 
Conditions  of  Acceptance.  —  His  Instructions  and  Inaugural.  —  Constitu 
tion  to  be  submitted.  —  Meeting  of  Congress.  —  President's  Message.  — 
Douglas's  Speech  of  9th  December  .............................................  311 

CHAPTER  XV. 

Internal  Improvements.  —  River  and  Harbor  Bills.  —  Tonnage  Duties.  — 
Douglas's  Proposition.  —  Letter  to  Governor  Matteson.  —  Illinois  Central 


X  CONTENTS. 

Railroad. — History  of  the  Measure  before  Congress. — Its  Passage. — Its 
Benefits  to  Illinois  and  the  West. — Pacific  Kailroad. — Speech  on  suh^ 
ject Page  354 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

Campaign  of  1858. — The  Lecompton  Constitution. — John  Calhoun. — Dem 
ocratic  Protests. — Unanimity  in  Illinois. — President  sustained. — Change 
of  Policy  by  Administration. — Disappointment  in  Illinois. — Strange  Doc 
trines  of  Washington  Union. — Panic  of  Republicans. — Their  Hopes  re 
vived. — President's  Message. — Meeting  in  Chicago. — Speeches. — Bigler 
and  Fitch  denounced. — Proscription  commenced. — Danitism  instituted. — 
Democratic  Convention. — New  Delegations. — How  got  up. — Unanimity 
of  Democrats. — Meeting  of  the  Convention. — Its  Proceedings. — Its  Reso 
lutions. — Danite  Convention. — Proscription  continued. — Second  Danite 
Convention. — Republican  Convention. — Democratic  Papers  in  Illinois. — 
Douglas  returns  to  Chicago. — His  Reception. — The  Proceedings. — Lin 
coln's  Speech,  17th  June. — Douglas's  Speech  in  Chicago 380 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

Lincoln  addresses  Meeting  at  Chicago. — Republican  Aid  to  Danites. — Ger 
man  Democrats  of  Chicago. — Douglas  leaves  for  Springfield. — His  Route. 
— Douglas  makes  and  announces  his  Appointments  for  Meetings. — The 
List. — Returns  to  Chicago. — Lincoln's  Challenge. — Its  Cause. — Douglas's 
Reply. — Joint  Discussions  agreed  upon. — Trumbull  speaks  at  Chicago. — 
Proscription  continued. — How  a  Democrat  saved  his  Head. — Douglas's 
Visit  and  Speech  at  Winchester. — Freeport  Treason. — Popular  Sovereign 
ty  Doctrines  of  Orr,  Douglas,  Buchanan. — Joint  Discussion  at  Ottawa. — 
Its  Result. — The  Freeport  Questions. — Douglas's  Answers. — Is  denounced 
and  read  out  of  Party. — Douglas's  Speech  in  '59  on  same  subject. — Joint 
Debates.  — Trumbull's  Policy.  — Imported  Orators  to  "kill  Douglas." — 
Danite  Proceedings. — Washington  Union. — Letters  from  Breckenridge, 
Wise,  and  Clay. — Hon.  A.  H.  Stephens. — Labors  of  the  Campaign. — 
Douglas's  last  Speeches. — Returns  to  Chicago. — Election  Day. — The  Re 
sult. — Danite  Vote. — Why  it  was  small. — Efforts  to  Defeat  Douglas  con 
tinued. — Senator  Coffee 41G 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

Married  in  1847. — Death  of  Mrs.  Douglas  in  1853. — His  Children. — Mar 
ried  in  1856. — Plantation  and  Slaves  Story. — True  Statement. — Remarks 
in  Senate  upon  it. — Slaveholders'  Stories  in  1858. — Mr.  Slidell  refutes 
them. — Malignity  of  federal  Officers. — Property  in  Chicago. — Donation 
to  University. — Aid  in  1856  to  carry  Pennsylvania 435 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

Douglas  visits  Europe. — Not  presented  to  Queen  Victoria. — Court  Costume. 
— Goes  to  St.  Petersburg. — Interview  with  Nesselrode. — Costume  Question 
again. — Is  presented  to  the  Emperor. — Sebastopol. — Douglas  and  the 


CONTENTS.  ^>  Xi 

Presidency. — Convention  of  1848. — Supports  Cass. — Convention  of  1852. 
— Convention  of  1856. — Two-third  Rule. — Buchanan  obtains  Majority. — 
Douglas  withdrawn. — His  Letter. — Effect  on  Convention. — Illinois  State 
Convention  in  1860. — Resolutions. — Conventions  in  other  States. — Demo 
cratic  Organization  in  Illinois. — History  from  1837  to  1860 Page  443 

CHAPTER  XX. 

Utah. — The  Mormons. — Prohibition  of  Polygamy. — Power  and  Expediency 
of  Congressional  Legislation. — Mormon  Government. — Their  Want  of 
Loyalty. — Aliens  to  the  Laws  of  the  United  States. — The  Remedy  for  ex 
isting  Evils. — Douglas's  Views. — His  Plan. — His  Speech  in  1857. — Min 
nesota. — Oregon. — Douglas  and  Organization  of  new  States  and  Terri 
tories. — Naturalization  Question. — African  Slave-trade 456 

CHAPTER  XXI. 

Cincinnati  Platform. — Anxiety  for  Endorsement  of  Nebraska  Act. — His 
Defense  of  that  Platform. — His  Interest  in  it. — Popular  Sovereignty. — 
Harper's  Magazine  Article. — Attorney  General  Black. — The  Pamphlets. 
— Gvvin's  Speech. — Douglas's  Reply. — Cobb's  unfriendly  Legislation. — 
An  unchanged  Platform 466 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

Harper's  Ferry  Affair.— Debates  in  Congress.— Douglas's  Remedy.— His 
Reply  to  Fessenden. — His  Reply  to  Seward 502 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

Popular  Demonstrations. — St.  Louis,  Memphis,  New  Orleans,  New  York, 
Philadelphia,  Baltimore,  Washington. — Service  on  Committees  in  House. 
— On  Senate  Committees. — Public  Lands. — Liberal  Policy. — Homestead 
Bill. — Friendship  for  Agriculturists. — Opposition  to  Monopolies.  —  Con 
clusion ..524 


LIFE  OF  STEPHEN  A,  DOUGLAS, 


CHAPTER  I. 

EARLY   LIFE. 

"THE  issues  of  all  human  action  are  uncertain.  No  man 
can  undertake  to  predict  positively  that  even  virtue  will  meet 
with  its  full  reward  in  this  world ;  but  this  much  may  be  said 
with  entire  certainty,  that  he  who  succeeds  in  marrying  his 
name  to  a  great  principle,  achieves  a  fame  as  imperishable  as 
truth  itself."  Such  was  the  language  in  which  a  senator  from 
Virginia  concluded  an  able  and  most  eloquent  speech  upon 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill.  The  prediction  has  been  verified 
by  history.  By  that  act  of  legislation,  the  name  of  STEPHEN 
A.  DOUGLAS  was  "  married"  to  the  principle  of  Popular  Sov 
ereignty  ;  and,  even  had  he  no  other  claim  upon  the  grateful 
memory  of  the  American  people,  that  indissoluble  blending 
of  his  name  with  the  most  vital  principle  of  constitutional  lib 
erty  would  alone  render  his  name  as  imperishable  as  truth 
itself.  The  name  of  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS,  therefore,  has,  by 
that  single  and  most  memorable  act,  been  stamped  ineffaceably 
upon  the  pages  of  his  country's  history,  and,  though  contem 
poraneous  writers  may  have  recorded  the  most  widely  differ 
ing  judgments  upon  his  conduct,  and  future  historians  may 
differ  as  widely  as  those  who  were  present  at,  and  who  were 
participants  in  the  consequences  of  the  passage  of  that  great 
act  as  to  the  measure  of  censure  or  praise  that  should  be 
awarded  to  him,  still  the  assertion  of  the  senator  from  Vir 
ginia  will  stand  verified,  and,  in  defiance  of  all  the  bitterness 
of  his  enemies,  throughout  all  coming  time  the  name  of  DOUG 
LAS  and  the  great  principle  of  Popular  Sovereignty  will  be  so 
linked  in  the  records  of  the  past,  and  so  closely  identified  with 
the  memories  of  the  present,  that  the  fame  of  the  former  can 
only  perish  in  the  overthrow  of  the  latter — an  occurrence  only 
possible  in  the  total  destruction  of  truth  itself. 

A 


2  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS. 

That  branch  of  the  Douglas  family  from  which  the  subject 
of  this  work  is  a  descendant  emigrated  from  Scotland,  and 
settled  at  New  London,  in  the  province  of  Connecticut,  during 
the  earlier  period  of  our  colonial  settlements.  One  of  the  two 
brothers  who  first  came  to  America  subsequently  removed 
from  New  London,  and  settle^  in  Maryland,  on  the  banks  of 
the  Potomac,  not  very  distant  from  the  site  of  the  present  city 
of  Washington.  His  descendants,  now  very  numerous,  are  to 
be  found  in  Virginia,  the  Carolinas,  Tennessee,  and  other  South 
ern  States.  The  other  brother  remained  at  New  London,  and 
his  descendants  are  scattered  over  New  England,  New  York, 
Pennsylvania,  and  the  Northwestern  States.  Doctor  Stephen 
A.  Douglas,  the  father  of  the  statesman  of  the  present  day, 
was  born  at  Stephentown,  in  Rensselaer  County,  New  York, 
and  when  quite  a  youth  removed  with  his  parents  to  Bran 
don,  Rutland  County,  Vermont,  where,  after  his  regular  course 
at  Middlebury  College,  he  studied  medicine,  and  became  dis 
tinguished  in  his  profession.  He  married  Miss  Sarah  Fisk, 
the  daughter  of  an  extensive  farmer  in  Brandon,  by  whom  he 
had  two  children — the  first  a  daughter,  and  the  second  a  son. 
On  the  first  of  July,  1813,  without  any  previous  illness  or 
physical  warning,  he  died  suddenly  of  a  disease  of  the  heart. 
At  the  very  moment  of  his  attack  and  of  his  death,  he  was 
playing  with  the  daughter  at  his  knees,  and  holding  his  son 
Stephen  in  his  arms. 

In  1813  the  country  was  at  war  with  Great  Britain — had 
undertaken  a  war  with  the  most  powerful  nation  in  the  world ; 
at  that  time  the  United  States,  with  an  unprotected  coast,  with 
an  overbearing,  and  insulting,  and  powerful  enemy  menacing 
both  seaboard  and  frontier;  with  hostile  navies  swarming 
upon  the  lakes,  and  commanding  every  sea  where  the  enter 
prise  of  American  commerce  had  unfurled  a  sail,  and  veteran 
armies,  fresh  from  Continental  fields  of  renown,  landing  on  our 
shores — at  that  time,  when  the  infant  republic,  trusting  in  the 
justice  of  her  cause,  had  risked  every  thing  to  preserve  the 
sacred  principle  that  an  American  citizen,  no  matter  where  he 
might  be,  who  stood  upon  an  American  deck,  was  to  be  se 
cured,  at  all  hazards,  in  all  the  great  rights  guaranteed  to  him 
by  the  Constitution  of  his  country  —  while  this  war  was 
waging,  and  while  the  contest  between  absolute  power  and 
popular  right  was  maintained  with  fire  and  sword  from  De- 


EAKLY   LIFE.  3 

troit  to  Key  West,  in  the  midst  of  this  struggle,  on  the  23d 
day  of  April,  1813,  was  bora  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS,  who,  forty- 
one  years  thereafter,  became  the  great  champion  of  that  same 
sacred  principle, — not,  indeed,  in  behalf  of  the  gallant  men 
who  tread  the  decks  of  the  American  fleets,  but  in  behalf  of 
those  other  and  no  less  gallant  heroes — the  pioneers  of  Amer 
ican  progress,  the  founders  of  American  states,  the  builders 
of  American  sovereignties — the  People  of  the  American  Ter 
ritories. 

The  grandmothers,  maternal  and  paternal,  of  Mr.  Douglas 
were  of  the  name  of  Arnold,  and  were  both  descended  from 
William  Arnold,  who  was  one  of  the  associates  of  Roger  Wil 
liams  in  founding  the  colony  of  Rhode  Island,  and  whose  son 
was  appointed  governor  of  that  colony  by  Charles  the  Second, 
when  he  granted  the  famous  charter  under  which  the  state 
continued  to  be  governed  until  even  after  the  establishment 
of  the  American  Union,  and  until  the  adoption  a  few  years  ago 
of  the  present  Constitution  of  Rhode  Island.  The  descendants 
of  Governor  Arnold  are  at  this  day  very  numerous  in  Rhode 
Island,  and,  indeed,  throughout  the  whole  country. 

Immediately  after  the  death  of  Dr.  Douglas,  his  widow,  with 
her  two  children,  removed  from  their  native  village  to  a  farm 
about  three  miles  in  the  country,  where  she  resided  with  her 
bachelor  brother,  Mr.  Fisk,  on  their  patrimonial  estate.     From 
his  earliest  childhood,  Stephen  was  raised  to  a  regular  course 
of  life — attending  the  district  school  during  the  winter  seasons, 
and  working  steadily  on  the  farm  the  residue  of  each  year. 
When  fifteen  years  of  age,  finding  that  a  number  of  his  school 
mates  of  his  own  years  were  about  to  enter  the  academy  to 
prepare  for  college,  he  applied  to  his  uncle,  whom  he  had  al 
ways  been  taught  to  respect  as  a  father,  for  permission  and 
means  to  enable  him  to  take  the  same  course.     This  request 
was  made  in  pursuance  of  an  understanding  which  he  sup/ 
posed  had  existed  in  the  family  from  his  earliest  recollection/ 
that  he  was  to  be  educated  and  sent  to  college ;  so  strong^ 
was  this  plan  for  the  future  impressed  upon  his  mind,  thattt 
.had  never  occurred  to  him  that  his  uncle's  marriage  a  y»r 
previous,  and  the  very  recent  birth  of  an  heir  to  his  estate,  ft/d 
in  the  least  changed  their  respective  relations ;   nor  had  pe 
seen  in  these  events  that  cloud  which  was  to  darken  the  hith 
erto  bright  visions  which  had  stimulated  his  youthful  am- 


4  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

bition.  An  affectionate  remonstrance  against  the  folly  of 
abandoning  the  farm  for  the  uncertainties  of  a  professional 
life,  accompanied  by  a  gentle  intimation  that  he  had  a  family 
of  his  own  to  support,  and  therefore  did  not  feel  able  to  bear 
the  expense  of  educating  other  persons'  children,  was  the  re 
sponse  made  to  the  boy's  request.  Instantly  the  eyes  of  young 
Douglas  were  opened  to  his  real  condition  in  life.  He  saw  at 
once  that  he  could  not  command  the  means  requisite  for  ac 
quiring  a  collegiate  education  without  exhausting  the  only  re 
sources  upon  which  his  mother  and  sister  must  rely ;  he  also 
saw  that  if  he  remained  on  the  farm  with  his  uncle  until  he  be 
came  of  age,  he  would  then  be  thrown  upon  the  world  without 
a  profession  or  a  trade  by  which  he  could  sustain  them  and 
himself.  Realizing  the  full  force  of  these  considerations,  and 
perceiving  for  the  first  time  that  he  must  rely  upon  himself  for 
the  future,  he  determined  to  leave  the  farm  and  at  once  learn 
a  mechanical  trade,  that  being  the  most  promising  and  cer 
tain  reliance  for  the  future.  Bidding  farewell  to  his  mother 
and  sister,  he  set  off  on  foot  to  engage  personally  in  the  great 
combat  of  life ;  on  that  same  day  he  walked  fourteen  miles, 
and  before  night  was  regularly  indentured  as  an  apprentice  to 
a  cabinet-maker  in  Middlebury.  He  worked  at  his  trade  with 
energy  and  enthusiasm  for  about  two  years,  the  latter  part  of 
the  time  at  a  shop  in  Brandon,  and  gained  great  proficiency  in 
the  art,  displaying  remarkable  mechanical  skill ;  but,  in  conse 
quence  of  feeble  health,  and  a  frame  unable  to  bear  the  contin 
ued  labor  of  the  shop,  he  was  reluctantly  compelled  to  aban 
don  a  business  in  which  all  his  hopes  and  pride  had  been  cen 
tred,  and  to  which  he  had  become  sincerely  attached.  He 
has  often  been  heard  to  say,  since  he  has  been  distinguished  in 
the  councils  of  the  nation,  that  the  happiest  days  of  his  life  had 
been  spent  in  the  workshop,  and,  had  his  health  and  strength 
been  equal  to  the  task,  no  consideration  on  earth  could  have 
'nduced  him  to  have  abandoned  it,  either  for  professional  or 

plitical  pursuits. 
He  entered  the  academy  of  his  native  town,  and  commenced 

a  course  of  classical  studies,  to  which  he  devoted  himself  for 

a»cut  twelve  months  with  all  that  energy  and  enthusiasm 

Wiich  are  a  part  of  his  nature. 
In  the  mean  time  his  sister  had  married  Julius  N".  Granger, 

Esq.,  of  Ontario  County,  ISTew  York,  and  shortly  afterward  his 


EAELY   LIFE.  5 

mother  was  married  to  Gehazi  Granger,  Esq.,  father  of  Julius, 
and  at  the  close  of  his  first  year  at  Brandon  Academy,  young 
Douglas,  at  the  earnest  solicitation  of  his  mother  and  step-fa 
ther,  removed  with  them  to  their  home  near  Canandaigua, 
New  York.  He  at  once  became  a  student  in  the  academy  at 
that  place — an  institution  which  for  more  than  half  a  century 
has  been  celebrated  for  its  thorough  academical  course  of 
studies,  and  for  the  large  number  of  eminent  professional  men 
.and  statesmen  whose  names  once  appeared  on  her  catalogue. 
He  remained  at  Canandaigua  nearly  three  years,  applying  him 
self  with  untiring  energy  and  zeal  to  the  pursuit  of  his  classic 
al  course  at  the  academy,  and,  during  a  portion  of  the  same 
time,  followed  a  course  of  law  studies  in  the  office  and  under 
the  instruction  of  the  Messrs.  Hubbell.  Some  idea  may  be 
formed  of  his  proficiency  in  the  classical  course,  and  of  the  en 
ergy  with  which  he  pursued  his  studies,  from  the  fact  that, 
while  the  laws  of  New  York  at  that  time  required  a  course  of 
seven  years  to  entitle  a  student  to  be  admitted  to  practice  law, 
four  years  of  which  might  be  occupied  in  classical  studies,  Mr. 
Douglas,  on  a  thorough  examination  upon  his  whole  course  of 
study,  was  allowed  a  credit  of  three  years  for  his  classical  at 
tainments  at  the  time  he  commenced  the  study  of  the  law, 
leaving  four  years  only  as  the  period  which  he  would  be  re 
quired  to  continue  as  a  law  student  to  entitle  him  to  be  ad 
mitted  to  the  bar  of  that  state.  He  kept  up  his  collegiate 
course,  however,  during  the  whole  time  he  was  studying  law, 
so-that  when  he  removed  to  the  West  in  June,  1833,  he  had 
mastered  nearly  the  entire  collegiate  course  in  most  of  the 
various  branches  required  of  a  graduate  in  our  best  univer 
sities. 

While  at  Canandaigua,  that  taste  for  political  controversy, 
which  had  shown  itself  in  him  when  a  boy,  had  a  wider  field. 
The  re-election  of  General  Jackson  took  place  in  1832  ;  and  the 
animated,  vigorous,  and,  at  times,  most  heated  discussions  of 
the  day,  developed  and  matured  that  taste,  until  he  made  the 
study  of  the  political  history  of  the  country  a  subject  of  as 
deep  importance  as  he  did  the  scholastic  exercises  of  the  acad 
emy.  We  have  not  been  able  to  ascertain  whether,  during 
the  exciting  canvass  of  1832,  he  made  any  address  to  any  po 
litical  meeting  in  Canandaigua  or  elsewhere;  but  we  are  in 
formed  that  in  the  debating  clubs,  and  in  all  gatherings,  large 


6  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

or  small,  the  cause  of  the  old  hero  found  in  him  a  most  enthu 
siastic  champion.  It  was  in  the  discussions  which  took  place 
before  the  societies  composed  of  his  fellow-students  at  Canan- 
daigua  that  he  made  his  first  public  speech ;  and  it  was  there, 
after  having  conquered  the  natural  diffidence  of  all  youthful 
orators,  that  he  first  obtained  that  confidence  and  self-reliance, 
as  well  as  that  ready  and  constant  flow  of  strong  and  forcible 
language,  which  mark  the  speeches  of  his  more  mature  age. 

A  gentleman,  now  residing  in  Illinois,  who  was  a  fellow-stu 
dent  of  Douglas  at  Canandaigua,  states  that  he  was  universally 
beloved  by  all  his  companions — loved  for  his  impulsive  gen 
erosity,  his  frankness,  and  the  genial  kindness  of  his  disposi 
tion.  He  was  recognized  and  admitted  to  be  the  politician  of 
the  circle ;  and,  though  the  students  were  of  all  political  par 
ties,  to  Douglas  was  conceded  the  distinction  of  being  the  best 
posted  student  in  the  place.  Indeed,  a  taste  for  politics  was 
evidenced  at  an  early  day.  It  is  stated  that  one  of  his  earliest 
essays  in  behalf  of  the  Democratic  party  was  the  organization 
of  a  band  of  "  Jackson  boys"  in  Vermont,  who  proclaimed  a 
war  upon  the  "  Coffin  handbills,"  and  who  managed  to  destroy 
those  placards  as  soon  as  they  appeared  on  the  walls  and  fences 
of  the  town.  He  has  lived  to  read  the  declaration  to  the  peo 
ple  of  Illinois,  in  1858,  of  a  "  life-long  democrat,"  who  was  act 
ively  engaged  in  the  circulation  of  those  infamous  libels  upon 
General  Jackson,  that  Stephen  A.  Douglas  was  not  a  safe  or 
reliable  member  of  the  Democratic  party ! 

In  June,  1833,  Mr.  Douglas,  then  a  few  months  over  twenty 
years  of  age,  left  Canandaigua  to  earn  for  himself  a  livelihood 
and  independence.  His  destination  was  that  uncertain  region 
then  designated  by  the  general  and  somewhat  comprehensive 
term  "  the  West."  He  left  home  and  friends  without  any  pur 
pose  of  locating  at  any  particular  point.  His  intention  was  to 
go  to  a  new  country,  and  by  identifying  himself  with  its  inter 
ests,  and  devoting  his  talents  to  the  development  of  those  in 
terests,  he  hoped  to  be  successful.  Such  a  home,  he  concluded, 
could  not  be  found  in  the  old-settled  states,  where  the  walks 
of  the  profession  were  crowded  with  men  already  eminent,  but 
a  man  of  energy  and  industry  might  hope  for  one  in  the  new 
settlements  on  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi.  Provided  with  a 
small  sum  of  money,  he  left  Canandaigua,  and  his  first  resting- 
place  was  at  Cleveland,  Ohio.  It  was  not  his  intention  origi- 


EAELY    LIFE.  7 

nally  to  remain  at  Cleveland,  but,  as  he  had  letters  of  introduc 
tion  to  persons  residing  there,  and  also  personal  friends,  he 
thought  he  would  profit  by  such  advice  and  counsel  as  he  could 
obtain  as  to  other  and  more  distant  points.  He  made  the  ac 
quaintance  of  the  Hon.  SHERLOCK  J.  ANDREWS,  at  that  time  a 
practicing  lawyer,  and  since  then  a  member  of  Congress  from 
that  district.  Mr.  Andrews  was  pleased  with  the  youth ;  gave 
him  all  the  information  he  could  furnish,  but  advised  him  to 
remain  in  Cleveland,  and,  as  an  inducement  to  do  so,  tendered 
him  the  use  of  his  library  and  office  until  he  should  have  pur 
sued  his  law  studies  for  one  year  within  the  state,  as  required 
by  the  laws  of  Ohio,  when  he  would  be  entitled  to  admission 
at  the  bar,  at  which  time,  such  was  Mr.  Andrews'  liberal  offer, 
Douglas  was  to  be  associated  with  Mr.  Andrews  as  a  member 
of  the  firm.  To  be  met  at  the  very  threshold  of  his  undertak 
ing  by  such  a  brilliant  promise  of  success  was  truly  gratifying, 
and  the  offer  was  at  once  accepted.  But  the  engagement  was 
not  to  be  completed.  Young  Douglas  at  once  entered  upon 
his  duties  as  law  clerk  in  Mr.  Andrews'  office,  but  in  less  than 
a  week  was  prostrated  by  an  attack  of  bilious  fever — the 
scourge  of  the  Western  country  during  the  period  of  its  early 
settlement — and  was  confined  to  his  room  for  many  weary 
months.  It  was  not  until  October  that  he  exhibited  any  signs 
of  permanent  recovery.  The  physicians  who  had  attended 
him  advised  him  to  return  to  Canandaigua,  as,  in  all  probabil 
ity,  he  would  be  attacked  by  the  fever  again  in  the  spring, 
which  his  feeble  health  and  delicate  frame,  both  now  so  disas 
trously  impaired,  would  not  be  able  to  sustain.  Under  these 
circumstances,  he  concluded  to  leave  Cleveland — then  but  a 
small  village,  now  the  beautiful  forest  city  of  the  Lakes.  In 
leaving  there,  he  never  thought  of  taking  the  back  track  and 
becoming  a  dependent  upon  his  friends  at  home,  but  he  de 
termined  to  leave  Cleveland  by  a  forward  movement,  by  a  fur 
ther  step  into  the  great  West,  resolved  never,  never  to  return 
until  he  should  attain  and  firmly  establish  a  respectable  posi 
tion  in  his  profession.  With  this  purpose  firmly  fixed  in  his 
mind,  he  left  Cleveland  during  October,  1833,  and  never  re 
turned  to  visit  his  friends  there  until,  ten  years  later,  he 
carried  with  him  his  certificate  of  election  as  a  member  of 
Congress,  having,  in  the  mean  time,  been  state's  attorney, 
member  of  the  Legislature,  register  of  the  Land-office,  secre- 


8  LIFE   OP   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

tary  of  state,  and  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  State  of 
Illinois. 

He  left  Cleveland  on  a  canal-boat,  on  which  he  traveled  un 
til  he  reached  Portsmouth,  on  the  Ohio  River,  where  he  took 
steam-boat  and  proceeded  down  the  river  to  Cincinnati.  For 
an  entire  week  he  sought  some  respectable  employment  in  that 
city,  from  which  he  could  derive  means  to  support  himself 
until  such  time  as  he  could  recruit  his  health  and  regain  his 
strength  to  enable  him  to  commence  the  practice  of  the  law. 
His  short  stock  of  funds  was  nearly  exhausted.  Finding  no 
encouragement  in  Cincinnati,  he  pushed  on  to  Louisville,  Ken 
tucky,  where  he  spent  another  week  with  no  better  success 
than  had  rewarded  his  search  in  Cincinnati.  Nothing  but  his 
firm  resolve  not  to  return  until  he  had  accomplished  a  success 
at  the  bar  nerved  the  heart  of  the  friendless,  moneyless,  health 
less  boy.  He  never  despaired  of  success,  though  from  what 
quarter  and  when  it  was  to  come  bid  defiance  to  his  conjec 
tures.  Turning  his  back  upon  Louisville,  he  proceeded  by 
steamer  to  St.  Louis.  During  this  trip  he  for  the  first  time 
witnessed  and  realized  to  their  full  extent  the  casualties  inci 
dent  to  the  navigation  of  the  Western  rivers — casualties  with 
which,  on  several  occasions  subsequently,  it  was  his  misfortune 
to  become  too  familiar.  Near  the  mouth  of  the  Ohio  the  boat 
was  detained  a  whole  week  in  consequence  of  running  upon  a 
"  snag"  and  breaking  her  machinery ;  and  just  below  St.  Louis 
she  barely  escaped  destruction  by  fire.  During  this  trip,  thus 
prolonged  to  nearly  twice  the  time  usually  occupied  in  going 
from  Louisville  to  St.  Louis,  he  made  several  acquaintances, 
and  formed  friendships  which  he  has  ever  cherished  with  affec 
tion,  and  of  which  he  always  speaks  with  gratitude,  particu 
larly  when  referring  to  Dr.  Linn,  the  distinguished  senator 
from  Missouri,  and  Colonel  Miller,  at  that  time  governor  of 
the  same  state,  both  of  whom  were  his  fellow-passengers. 

Arrived  at  St.  Louis,  he  made  the  acquaintance  of  the  Hon. 
EDWAED  BATES,  then,  as  now,  an  eminent  lawyer  and  an  orna 
ment  to  his  profession.  Mr.  Bates  was  kind  to  the  young 
stranger,  encouraging  him  by  his  advice,  and  tendering  him 
the  free  use  of  his  office  and  library  until  he  could  get  into 
practice  on  his  own  account.  The  immediate  and  urgent  ne 
cessities  of  the  youth  did  not  permit  an  acceptance  of  this 
generous  ofier.  He  had  but  a  few,  very  few  dollars  left,  and 


EARLY   LIFE.  9 

some  immediate  employment  yielding  a  pecuniary  compensa 
tion  was  necessary.  With  thanks,  he  reluctantly  but  neces 
sarily  declined  Mr.  Bates's  offer,  and,  seeing  no  opportunity 
of  obtaining  employment  in  St.  Louis,  he  concluded  to  seek 
without  delay  some  country  town,  where,  if  his  earnings  were 
small,  his  expenses  at  least  would  be  far  less  than  in  the  large 
city.  His  present  search  was  an  engagement  as  a  teacher 
until  spring,  by  which  time  he  hoped  with  renewed  health  he 
might  enter  upon  the  great  field  of  his  ambition — the  practice 
of  the  law. 

Having  recently  read  a  book  of  travels  in  the  Western  States 
by  a  Scotchman,  in  which  was  given  a  charming  description 
of  that  part  of  Illinois  about  Jacksonville,  and  having  counted 
his  money,  and  finding  that  he  had  barely  enough  left  to  ena 
ble  him  to  reach  that  place,  he  resolved  to  make  the  last  effort 
in  that  quarter,  and  trust  to  Providence  and  his  own  energies 
for  the  future. 

At  the  time  to  which  we  refer,  Illinois  was  settled  princi 
pally  in  what  is  now  the  lower  half  of  the  state — in  that  part 
lying  south  of  a  line  drawn  east  and  west  across  the  state,  at 
what  is  the  present  northern  boundary  of  Sangamon  County ; 
the  counties  of  Sangamon  and  Morgan  embracing  the  terri 
tory  then  included  in  the  limits  of  half  a  dozen  of  the  present 
counties  of  the  state.  The  seat  of  government  was  at  Vanda- 
lia,  in  Fayette  County,  but  Sangamon  and  Morgan  were  the 
leading  counties  in  point  of  population.  In  1830,  three  years 
previously,  the  population  of  the  state  was  as  follows : 

White  inhabitants 155,061 

Free  negroes 1,637 

Total  free 156,698 

Negroes  held  in  bondage 747 

Total  population 157,445 

By  a  census  taken  under  the  authority  of  the  Legislature  of 
1836-7  the  population  was  ascertained  to  be: 

White  males 141,667 

White  females 125,558 

Total  white 267,225 

Free  negroes , 2,261 

Negroes  registered  as  apprentices  and  held  in  bondage....          488 
Total  population 269,974 

The  Hon.  John  Reynolds  was  governor,  and  Hon.  Zadock 

A2 


10  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

Casey  lieutenant  governor,  they  having  been  elected  in  August, 
1830,  to  serve  four  years  each. 

The  state  was  represented  in  Congress  by  the  Hon.  Samuel 
McRoberts  and  John  M.  Robinson  in  the  Senate,  and  by  three 
members  in  the  House  of  Representatives. 

The  judiciary  of  the  state  consisted  of  a  Supreme  Court  of 
four  judges,  holding  office  during  good  behavior,  and  a  num 
ber  of  circuit  courts.  The  circuit  courts,  having  been  erect 
ed  by  the  Legislature,  were  within  the  control  and  subject  to 
the  action  of  the  power  that  created  them.  They  might  be 
abolished  or  increased  from  time  to  time,  as  the  Legislature 
might  determine.  The  Supreme  Court,  however,  being  a  tri 
bunal  erected  by  the  Constitution,  the  judges  held  office  by  a 
tenure  which  could  not  be  disturbed  by  any  legislative  action. 
The  only  possible  modes  by  which  the  Legislature  could  reach 
that  tribunal  was  by  voting  an  address,  to  be  voted  for  by  two 
thirds  of  the  members,  asking  for  the  removal  of  the  judges ; 
by  impeachment,  trial,  and  conviction  of  the  judges ;  or  by  in 
creasing  from  time  to  time  the  number  of  judges  constituting 
the  court.  The  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  with  the  gov 
ernor,  constituted  a  Council  of  Revision,  a  majority  of  which 
council  could  approve,  or  could  exercise  a  veto  upon  all  acts 
of  legislation.  The  Supreme  Court  at  that  time  consisted,  as 
has  been  stated,  of  four  judges,  viz.,  William  Wilson,  Thomas 
C.  Brown,  Theophilus  W.  Smith,  and  Samuel  D.  Lockwood. 
The  state  in  1832  had  voted  for  General  Jackson,  and  the  Dem 
ocratic  party  was  in  a  decided  majority. 

The  state  had  for  a  number  of  years  been  agitated  upon  the 
subject  of  internal  improvements.  That  was  the  subject  of 
local  politics,  entering  more  or  less  into  the  election  of  all  state 
officers,  particularly  of  members  of  the  Legislature.  Railroads 
and  canals  at  that  time  were  a  subject  as  prolific  in  excitement, 
in  speeches,  in  resolutions,  and  in  politics  as  they  have  been  at 
any  subsequent  period  in  the  history  of  the  state.  At  every 
session  of  the  Legislature  charters  without  number  were  grant 
ed  for  all  manner  of  works  of  improvement,  but  these  produced 
no  results.  A  charter  to  build  a  road  or  cut  a  canal  was  al 
most  valueless  without  the  means  or  the  credit  to  commence 
and  go  on  with  the  work.  As  an  indication  of  the  extent  to 
which  this  business  was  carried,  the  following  table  of  railroads 
and  canals  authorized  by  acts  of  the  Legislature  previous  to 


EAELY    LIFE.  11 

the  final  adoption  of  a  system  in  Avhich  the  state  was  to  be 
come  the  paymaster  will  suffice. 

In  December,  1835,  a  special  session  of  the  Legislature  was 
held.  Previous  to  that  time  the  following  railroads  had  been 
authorized  by  law,  companies  having  been  incorporated  with 
liberal  charters  for  their  construction  : 

Names  of  Roads.  Miles. 

Vincennes  and  Chicago  Railroad 240 

Alton  and  Springfield 80 

Jacksonville  and  Meredosia 24 —  344 

At  that  special  session  the  following  were  added  to  the  list : 

Belleville  and  Mississippi 16 

Pekin,  Bloomington,  and  Wabash 150 

Mississippi,  Springfield,  and  Carrollton 125 

Alton,  Wabash,  and  Erie 240 

Central  Branch — Wabash 80 

Galena  and  Chicago 175 

Wabash  and  Mississippi 260 

Shawneetown  and  Alton 180 

Alton  and  Shawneetown 190 

Mount  Carmel  and  Alton 150 

Wabash  and  Mississippi  Union 180 

Warsaw,  Peoria,  and  Wabash 275 

Waverly  and  Grand  Prairie 30 

Rushville 15 

Pekin  and  Tremont 8 

Illinois  Central 300 

Beardstown  and  Sangamon  Canal 150 — 2524 

And  at  the  next  session  the  following : 

Illinois  and  Mississippi 90 

Naples  and  Jacksonville 24 

Chicago  and  Vincennes 240 

Springfield  and  Beardstown 50 

Winchester,  Lynnville,  and  Jacksonville 40 

Bloomington,  Ottawa,  and  Keshwakee 125 —  569 

A  grand  total  of  24  railroads,  with  an  aggregate  length 
of  3287  miles,  and  one  canal  of  150  miles,  making  to 
gether  of  miles 3437 

Charters  were  liberal  in  their  terms,  and  contractors  were 
ready  and  willing  to  go  on  with  the  works  upon  the  first  ap 
pearance  of  money.  But  money  there  was  none,  and  the  issue 
had  gradually  been  growing  up  before  the  people  whether  the 
state  should  or  should  not  become  a  party  to  the  construction 
of  these  works.  The  prospect  of  railroads  or  canals  construct- 


12  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

ed  by  individual  enterprise  or  capital  was  daily  becoming  more 
and  more  remote ;  and  as  that  prospect  receded,  the  policy  of 
having  the  state  embark  in  the  grand  enterprise  assumed  more 
significance,  until  at  last  it  took  shape  and  form,  and  became 
the  eventful  topic  of  the  day.  It  had  its  friends  and  it  had  its 
opponents ;  for  years  the  latter  were  the  stronger,  and  Legis 
latures,  reflecting  the  popular  will,  refused  to  commit  the  state 
to  the  internal  improvement  policy.  A  particular  series  of 
works  formed  the  body  of  each  proposed  scheme,  but  these 
works  were  not  of  overruling  local  importance  to  those  por 
tions  of  the  state  having  the  main  portion  of  the  people,  and 
consequently  controlling  the  State  Legislature.  To  overcome 
this  great  difficulty,  the  scheme  of  public  works  was  each  year 
increased  by  the  addition  of  a  new  railroad,  or  branch  connect 
ing  two  or  three  counties,  or  giving  the  means  of  transporta 
tion  from  interior  counties  to  creeks  and  streams,  which  wTere, 
with  very  little  regard  for  truth,  declared  by  act  of  Legislature 
"  navigable  rivers."  We  believe  a  steam-boat  captain,  deceived 
possibly  by  one  of  these  acts  of  Legislature,  attempted  to  as 
cend  the  "navigable"  river  Sangamon,  and  did  succeed  in 
reaching  a  small  place  called  Portland,  near  Springfield,  but 
the  trip  was  never  repeated,  the  boat  having  been  compelled, 
for  want  of  room  to  turn,  to  back  down  stream  until  it  reach 
ed  the  Illinois  River.  Those  who  now  pass  the  railroad  bridge 
over  the  Sangamon  River,  on  the  Chicago,  Alton,  and  St.  Louis 
Railroad,  a  few  miles  north  of  Springfield,  will  have  some  dif 
ficulty  in  discovering  the  advantages  of  that  point,  the  site  of 
Portland,  for  a  city  with  an  extensive  river  trade.  Yet,  in 
olden  times,  that  prospect  was  not  deemed  more  visionary  than 
that  Chicago  would  be  a  city  of  a  hundred  thousand  inhabit 
ants.  The  advocates  of  the  internal  improvements  to  be  con 
structed  by  the  state  grew  stronger  each  year.  Many  coun 
ties,  once  strong  in  their  hostility  to  the  great  scheme,  were 
revolutionized  in  sentiment  by  including  in  the  general  plan  a 
railroad  or  a  branch  which  was  to  enhance  the  value  of  the 
farms  a  hundred-fold,  and  give  to  each  producer  a  cheap  and 
rapid  ride  to  market  with  his  products.  Who  could  withstand 
the  temptation  ?  Who  could  refuse  to  vote  for  a  railroad  to 
pass  by  his  own  door  ?  The  history  of  the  last  five  years  has 
shown  that  the  men  of  1835-6  were  at  least  no  more  unwise 
than  the  men  of  1859.  Cities  borne  down  with  debt,  counties 


EAKLY  LIFE.  13 

reduced  to  repudiation,  and  individuals  utterly  ruined  by  lib 
eral  subscriptions  to  railroads,  indicate  that  the  seductions  of 
grand  works  of  internal  improvement  have  been  as  potent  of 
late  years  as  they  were  in  the  days  when  Illinois  so  unfor 
tunately  embarked  in  the  business.  In  vain,  however,  was  the 
plan  of  a  general  system  presented.  The  flying  bids  for  local 
support  became  so  numerous  and  so  heavy  that  they  threaten 
ed  destruction  to  the  whole.  The  removal  of  the  seat  of  gov 
ernment  was  agitated,  and  eventually  that  project  became  a 
powerful  auxiliary  to  the  improvement  system.  It  is  believed 
that  the  delegation  of  a  county  having  six  members  in  the 
Lower  House  were  enlisted  in  support  of  the  improvement  bill 
by  the  promise  of  the  removal  of  the  capital  to  the  county  seat 
of  that  county.  Nor  did  this  even  turn  the  scale.  Another 
and  a  more  extensive  bid  for  local  support  was  included  in  the 
scheme.  This  was,  that  out  of  the  first  moneys  borrowed  on 
the  faith  of  the  state  for  works  of  internal  improvement,  a  large 
sum  (eventually  fixed  at  $200,000)  should  be  paid,  in  propor 
tion  to  a  census  to  be  taken,  to  all  the  counties  in  the  state 
through  which  no  railroad  or  canal  was  provided  to  be  con 
structed  by  the  state  ! 

The  state  was  also,  to  some  considerable  extent,  agitated 
upon  the  subject  of  General  Jackson's  bank  policy.  The  bank 
had  many  interested,  as  well  as  political  friends  in  the  state. 
The  policy  of  General  Jackson  was  represented  as  fatal  to  the 
best  interests  of  the  people,  because  it  destroyed  the  only  relia 
ble  banking  capital  of  the  country.  How  was  Illinois  to  pros 
per  without  roads  and  canals,  and  how  were  roads  and  canals 
to  be  constructed  if  the  banks — the  only  capitalists  of  the 
country — were  destroyed?  These  questions  were  propound 
ed  at  every  town-meeting  and  court-day,  and  many  of  the 
most  devoted  friends  of  Jackson  shrank  from  a  defense  of 
what  they  knew  not  how  to  defend. 

Pending  these  great  questions,  pending  the  consideration 
of  measures  fraught  with  so  much  evil  to  the  state,  and  whose 
consequences  are  yet  so  severely  felt,  on  a  morning  late  in  No 
vember,  1833,  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS  stepped  from  a  steam-boat 
at  the  town  of  Alton,  and  for  the  first  time  trod  the  generous 
soil  and  breathed  the  pure,  free  air  of  the  Prairie  State,  Illinois. 

He  lost  no  time  in  Alton,  but  at  once  proceeded  by  stage 
coach  to  Jacksonville,  where  he  arrived  next  day.  He  still 
lacked  six  months  of  being  twenty-one  years  of  age. 


14  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 


CHAPTER  II. 

FIRST   STRUGGLES   IN   ILLINOIS. 

ONCE  arrived  at  Jacksonville,  he  had  reached  that  point  in 
his  journey  where,  whether  fortune  was  to  smile  or  to^  frown 
upon  him,  he  was  to  meet  his  destiny.  He  saw  no  prospect 
of  succeeding  at  the  law,  no  prospect  of  immediate  success, 
and  pecuniary  aid  was  indispensable.  He  had  but  thirty-seven 
cents  in  money,  and  was  a  total  stranger.  Gentlemen  now  in 
Illinois,  who  at  that  time  held  high  position — socially,  politi 
cally,  and  officially — state  that,  even  a  year  later,  there  was 
but  little  in  the  personal  appearance  of  the  delicate,  wasted 
form,  and  the  pale,  anxious  face  of  the  youth,  to  attract  any 
special  attention.  His  first  essay  was  to  find  employment  in  a 
law  office,  where  for  a  time,  in  consideration  of  his  services  as 
a  clerk,  he  could  obtain  enough  to  defray  his  personal  expenses. 
He  remained  in  Jacksonville  some  days,  and  was  forced  by 
necessity  to  sell  such  of  his  school-books  as  he  had  brought 
with  him.  Failing  to  obtain  any  employment,  even  as  a  teach 
er,  at  Jacksonville,  he  started  one  morning  in  December  on 
foot,  and  walked  to  the  town  of  Winchester,  now  the  flourish 
ing  county  seat  of  Scott  County.  The  morning  after  his  arri 
val  he  left  his  lodgings  to  inquire  for  employment.  As  he  ap 
proached  the  square,  he  saw  a  crowd  of  persons  assembled,  and 
curiosity  led  him  to  the  spot. 

Some  time  previously  a  merchant  in  Winchester  had  died, 
and  his  stock  in  trade,  consisting  of  a  great  variety  of  articles, 
had  been  advertised  for  sale  by  the  administrator ;  the  sale  had 
attracted  a  large  attendance.  The  morning  on  which  Mr. 
Douglas  made  his  advent  into  the  public  square  of  Winchester 
was  the  morning  fixed  by  previous  notice  for  the  sale.  The 
administrator  and  the  crier  were  present,  but  a  clerk  compe 
tent  to  keep  a  record  of  the  sales,  and  to  make  out  the  bills  of 
the  several  purchasers,  was  indispensable.  The  hour  had  ar 
rived  and  passed  ;  no  person  in  the  assemblage  competent  was 
willing  to  undertake  the  duty ;  the  administrator  was  embar 
rassed,  and  the  multitude  impatient.  At  this  critical  moment 


FIEST   STRUGGLES   IN   ILLINOIS.  15 

Mr.  Douglas  approached  the  scene ;  he  was  a  stranger ;  one 
of  the  persons  present  suggested  that  perhaps  he  could  "  read, 
write,  and  cipher."  The  administrator  at  once  addressed  Mr. 
Douglas,  representing  the  embarrassments  of  the  case,  and  the 
urgent  necessity  for  the  sale,  which  could  not  proceed  without 
the  aid  of  a  competent  clerk.  He  begged  his  services  as  a 
personal  obligation,  and  tendered  the  liberal  salary  of  two  dol 
lars  per  day.  After  a  brief  struggle,  in  which  the  promised 
fee  had,  doubtless,  its  full  force  in  determining  his  mind,  he 
consented,  and  the  sale  at  once  commenced.  The  auction  con 
tinued  three  days,  and  the  impression  made  by  the  young  clerk 
was  a  most  favorable  one.  His  youth,  his  superior  attainments, 
and  particularly  the  promptness  with  which  he  discharged  his 
duties,  won  for  him  the  kind  regards  of  all  parties ;  and,  in 
addition  to  this,  the  readiness  and  ability  which  he  displayed 
in  the  political  conversations  which  took  place  at  every  inter 
val  during  the  sale  and  in  the  evenings,  gained  for  him  a  re 
spect  and  an  admiration  not  generally  extended  to  persons 
of  his  age.  The  warmth  and  force,  yet  the  perfect  good-hu 
mor  displayed  by  him  in  defense  of  "  Old  Hickory"  in  these 
discussions  at  once  marked  him  as  a  valuable  acquisition  to 
the  one  party,  and  a  formidable  opponent  of  the  other.  The 
old  farmers,  who  were  Jackson  men  because  they  felt  Jackson 
was  right,  though  unable  to  argue  the  case  with  the  Bankites, 
found  in  Douglas  an  object  of  special  admiration.  They  ex 
pressed  their  willingness  to  serve  him  in  any  way  that  was  in 
their  power.  His  three  days'  services  as  clerk  of  the  auction 
yielded  him  six  dollars  in  money — no  small  sum  in  those  days, 
particularly  when  they  constituted  a  man's  entire  fortune.  His 
want  of  means,  and  his  desire  to  get  a  school,  were  soon  known, 
and  as  soon  canvassed  among  his  new-found  friends  and  ad 
mirers  ;  and  in  a  few  days  he  was  provided  with  a  school  of 
forty  pupils,  at  the  rate  of  three  dollars  each  per  quarter !  He 
engaged  to  conduct  this  school  for  three  months,  and,  on  the 
first  Monday  in  December,  1833,  he  commenced  his  labors  as 
a  teacher. 

In  the  few  days  he  had  remained  at  Jacksonville  he  made 
the  acquaintance  of  General  Murray  M'Connell  (his  first  friend 
in  the  state  which  has  since  conferred  so  many  honors  upon 
him),  and  who  was  appointed  fifth  auditor  of  the  Treasury  by 
President  Pierce  in  1855,  at  the  request  of  Judge  Douglas, 


16  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

without  General  M'ConnelPs  solicitation  or  knowledge.  The 
particular  favor  which  General  M'Connell  rendered  Mr.  Doug 
las,  which  he  has  never  ceased  to  acknowledge,  was  the  loan 
of  some  old  law-books  and  copies  of  the  statutes  of  the  state. 
These  books  were  indispensable  to  him,  and  he  had  not  the 
means  to  purchase  them. 

While  teaching  school,  he  devoted  his  evenings  and  leisure 
time  to  the  study  of  these  borrowed  books,  and  frequently,  on 
Saturday  afternoons,  acted  as  counsel  before  the  justice's  court 
in  Winchester.  Before  leaving  Jacksonville,  he  had  filed  his 
application  before  the  Supreme  Court  for  admission  to  the  bar. 
The  proceeds  of  his  school,  together  with  the  fees  obtained  for 
legal  services  before  the  justice  of  the  peace,  justified  him,  at 
the  end  of  the  three  months,  in  giving  up  his  school  and  in 
removing  to  Jacksonville,  where  he  opened  an  office  for  the 
practice  of  the  law. 

On  the  fourth  day  of  March,  1834,  then  lacking  some  seven 
weeks  of  his  majority,  he  was  licensed  as  an  attorney  by  the 
judges  of  the  Supreme  Court.  Little  did  those  judges  think, 
when  they  issued  a  license  to  the  stripling  who  stood  before 
them  on  that  bleak  March  day,  that  in  a  few,  a  very  few  years, 
he  would  become  the  leader  of  a  great,  growing,  and  eventu 
ally  triumphant  party,  having  for  its  aim  the  reorganization  of 
that  court  and  the  destruction  of  its  political  power ;  much 
less  did  they  suppose  that,  in  seven  years  from  that  day  upon 
which  they  granted  him  their  license  to  practice  law,  he  would- 
be  elevated  by  the  almost  unanimous  voice  of  the  representa 
tives  of  the  people  to  a  seat  upon  the  same  bench  they  occu 
pied,  possessing  the  confidence  and  the  approval  of  the  people 
to  a  degree  never  previously  enjoyed  by  any  judge  in  the  State 
of  Illinois. 

At  that  tune  there  was  published  at  Jacksonville  a  Demo 
cratic  paper,  called  the  "Jacksonville  News,"  edited  by  S.  S. 
Brooks,  Esq.  Mr.  Brooks,  in  a  letter  before  us,  after  stating 
that  he  commenced  the  publication  of  this  paper  in  February, 
1834,  says:  "My  prospectuses  "were  circulated  throughout 
Morgan  and  the  adjoining  counties,  and,  immediately  after  the 
publication  of  the  first  number  of  the  paper,  most  of  them  were 
returned  with  lists  of  names  of  subscribers  on  them.  Among 
the  returned  copies  of  the  prospectus  was  one  from  Winches 
ter,  with  a  large  number  of  names,  accompanied  by  a  very  com- 


FIKST   STRUGGLES   IN   ILLINOIS.  17 

plimentary  and  encouraging  letter,  signed  '  Steph.  A.  Douglas.' 
Naturally  desiring  to  know  something  more  of  my  unknown 
friend  than  the  name,  I  found,  upon  inquiry,  that  he  was  a 
young  man  from  the  State  of  New  York,  engaged  in  the  hum 
ble  but  honorable  occupation  of  school-teacher.  A  few  days 
afterward,  say  about  the  first  of  March,  Mr.  Douglas  visited 
Jacksonville,  and  a  personal  introduction  followed.  In  antici 
pation  of  his  visit,  I  expected  to  see  a  young  man,  for  of  such 
was  composed  the  corps  of '  Yankee  schoolmasters'  in  this  state 
at  that  time ;  but  in  this,  my  first  interview  with  Douglas,  I 
was  surprised  to  see  a  youth  apparently  not  exceeding  seven 
teen  or  eighteen  years  of  age.  He  was  not  quite  '  twenty-one,' 
but  was  beardless,  and  remarkably  youthful  in  appearance  for 
that  age.  I  was  more  surprised,  however,  in  the  strength  of 
his  mind,  the  development  of  his  intellect,  and  his  comprehen 
sive  knowledge  of  the  political  history  of  the  country." 

As  has  been  stated  in  a  former  part  of  this  book,  although 
the  state  was  Democratic,  and  had  voted  for  General  Jackson 
in  1832,  public  opinion  was  in  a  very  unsettled  and  excited 
state  respecting  some  acts  of  his  administration.  The  "  Bank 
Question"  was  the  all-pervading  topic  of  national  politics.  The 
removal  of  several  cabinet  officers,  the  withdrawal  of  the  gov 
ernment  deposits  from  the  custody  of  the  United  States  Bank 
in  September,  1833,  were  the  leading  acts  of  aggression  charged 
against  the  administration.  The  bank  was  contracting  its  dis 
counts  and  circulation,  producing  panic  and  consternation 
throughout  the  state,  whose  people  were  expecting  internal 
improvements  through  the  aid  of  external  capital.  No  locality 
in  Illinois  was  exempt  from  the  excitement.  Parties  were  des 
ignated  "  Jackson  party"  and  "  Opposition."  The  hostile  feel 
ings  of  the  two  parties  in  Illinois  were  intense,  and  were  ex 
hibited  in  all  the  relations  of  life.  Social  and  business  in 
tercourse  was  confined,  as  far  as  was  practicable,  to  political 
friends.  To  be  a  political  opponent  was,  to  a  great  extent,  to 
be  a  personal  enemy,  and  an  enemy  to  the  country.  At  that 
time,  in  Jacksonville,  the  supporters  of  the  bank  policy  of  the 
administration  were  very  few.  The  editor  of  the  "  News," 
and  perhaps  two  others,  were  the  only  men  who  dared  openly 
justify  and  maintain  the  cause  of  General  Jackson.  A  few 
men,  farmers  of  intelligence  in  different  parts  of  the  county, 
who  were  independent,  and  under  no  obligations  of  a  pecun- 


18  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS. 

iary  character  to  the  bank  or  its  friends,  were  fearless  in  the 
assertion  of  their  political  sentiments.  It  was  the  custom  in 
those  days  for  nearly  the  entire  population  of  the  county  to 
visit  the  county  seat  on  Saturdays — the  men  to  sell  produce, 
trade  horses,  and  talk  politics,  and  the  feminine  portion  to  see 
the  fashions  and  do  shopping.  Consequently,  almost  every 
Saturday  was  a  kind  of  seventh  day  political  jubilee  for  the 
Jackson  party,  who,  if  not  numerous,  gloried  in  their  individ 
ual  and  collective  pluck,  in  the  justice  of  their  cause,  and,  of 
course,  were  not  afraid  to  make  a  noise.  Mr.  Douglas  opened 
his  law  office  in  a  room  in  the  court-house  building.  He  soon 
became  the  political  cynosure  toward  whom  the  eyes  of  the 
Democracy  of  the  county  were  directed.  His  open,  frank,  and 
respectful  manners,  the  extraordinary  ability  and  vehemence 
with  which  he  defended  the  acts  of  the  administration,  and  the 
remarkable  self-possession  and  confidence  which  marked  all 
his  political  controversies — and  they  occurred  almost  daily — 
soon  made  him  the  object  of  attraction  and  admiration  on  one 
side,  and  of  fear  and  abuse  on  the  other.  The  Opposition — 
just  about  that  time  called  "  Whigs" — were  so  arrogant  in  the 
superiority  of  their  numbers,  and  so  overwhelming  in  the  con 
trol  of  public  sentiment,  that  it  became  necessary  for  the  friends 
of  General  Jackson  to  "  define  their  position"  in  some  public 
manner,  and  effect  an  organization.  After  consultation,  it  was 
deemed  by  Mr.  Douglas  and  the  editor  of  the  News  expedient 
to  call  a  mass  meeting  of  the  Democrats  of  the  county,  to  test 
the  question  whether  General  Jackson  was  to  be  entirely  aban 
doned  or  heartily  supported.  The  proposition,  however,  met 
violent  opposition  from  the  residue  of  the  party,  under  the  im 
pression  that  the  people  would  not  turn  out  to  sustain  the 
President  under  the  existing  panic.  The  proposition  met  with 
more  favor  from  the  Democrats  outside  of  Jacksonville,  but 
still  a  majority  thought  the  experiment  a  hazardous  one.  Not 
withstanding  the  fierceness  of  the  Opposition,  and  the  openly 
proclaimed  objections  of  Democrats,  hand-bills  were  issued 
and  posted  in  every  town  in  the  county,  calling  a  mass  meet 
ing  two  weeks  hence  at  the  court-house.  In  the  mean  time 
resolutions  were  prepared,  endorsing  the  policy  of  the  Pres 
ident  in  refusing  to  recharter  the  bank  and  in  removing  the 
deposits — two  points  upon  which  thousands  of  Democrats  dif 
fered  from  the  administ ration.  The  majority  of  the  Democrats 


FIRST   STRUGGLES   IN   ILLINOIS.  19 

thought  a  bank  of  some  kind  indispensable,  and  the  other  side 
thought  and  declared  the  charter  of  such  an  institution  to  be 

O 

clearly  unconstitutional.  The  resolutions  met  with  fierce  oppo 
sition  in  the  little  caucus.  When  the  day  of  meeting  arrived, 
the  court-house  was  thronged;  people  poured  into  town  in 
wagons,  on  horseback,  and  on  foot.  At  twelve  o'clock  a  larger 
concourse  of  people  had  assembled  in  Jacksonville  than  had 
ever  met  there  before.  Douglas  had  previously  declined  the 
duty  of  oifering  the  resolutions,  pleading  his  youth,  his  short 
residence  in  the  town,  and  various  personal  considerations ;  but 
when  the  hour  of  meeting  arrived,  when  the  court-house  was 
filled  to  its  utmost  capacity,  when  the  windows  were  taken 
out  to  enable  those  outside  in  the  square  to  hear  the  proceed 
ings  within,  the  gentleman  to  whom  had  been  assigned  the 
duty  of  presenting  the  resolutions  handed  them  to  Douglas, 
telling  him  that  the  opportunity  now  presented  to  make  an 
impression  was  an  extraordinary  one,  and  should  not  be  neg 
lected,  and  wTas  of  such  personal  importance  to  him  (Douglas) 
that  he  ought  not  to  allow  it  to  pass.  At  all  events,  it  was 
soon  ascertained  that  unless  he  presented  them  they  would  not 
be  offered  at  all.  The  meeting  having  been  organized,  Doug 
las  boldly  advanced,  stating  that  he  held  in  his  hands  certain 
resolutions  which  he  supposed  would  meet  the  approval  of  all 
Democrats :  these  resolutions  he  then  read,  and,  in  a  brief 
speech,  explained  and  supported  them. 

As  soon  as  he  had  taken  his  seat,  Josiah  Lamborn,  Esq.,  a 
lawyer  of  considerable  reputation,  subsequently  attorney  gen 
eral  of  the  state,  a  Whig,  and  a  man  of  great  personal  influ 
ence,  followed  in  opposition  to  the  resolutions.  He  was  severe 
and  caustic  in  reference  to  Mr.  Douglas,  and  flatly  contradict 
ed  a  statement  of  fact  made  by  him.  He  addressed  the  meet 
ing  for  some  time.  Douglas  immediately  arose,  and  at  once 
applied  himself  to  a  reply  to  Lamborn.  The  question  of  fact 
he  soon  disposed  of  by  calling  up  several  Whigs,  who  declared 
Lamborn  to  be  wrong.  He  then  for  an  hour  or  more  address 
ed  the  meeting  in  his  own  peculiar  style.  The  effect  was  irre 
sistible.  Lamborn  precipitately  left  the  room ;  and  when  Doug 
las  concluded  his  speech,  the  excitement  of  the  meeting  had 
reached  the  highest  point  of  endurance ;  cheer  upon  cheer  was 
given  with  hearty  vigor  ;  the  crowd  swayed  to  and  fro  to  get 
near  the  orator,  and  at  length  he  was  seized  by  them,  and,  borne 


20  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

on  the  shoulders  and  upheld  by  the  arms  of  a  dozen  of  his  stal 
wart  admirers,  was  carried  out  of  the  court-house  and  through 
and  around  the  public  square  with  the  most  unbounded  mani 
festations' 'of  gratitude  and  admiration.  He  was  greeted  with 
varied  but  most  expressive  complimentary  titles,  such  as  "  High- 
combed  Cock,"  "  You  will  be  President  yet,"  "  Little  Giant" 
— which  last  title,  originating  at  this  first  public  occasion  of 
his  defense  of  Democratic  principles,  is  yet,  with  renewed  con 
fidence  in  its  appropriateness,  applied  to  him  by  his  friends. 

Such  was  the  first  appearance  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas  on  the 
theatre  of  Illinois  politics — a  theatre  that  for  twenty-five  years 
has  been  the  constant  scene  of  unbroken  triumphs.  As  on  his 
first  appearance  he  was  borne  in  triumph  upon  the  shoulders 
of  his  admiring  hearers,  so,  for  a  quarter  of  a  century  since 
then,  he  has  been  borne  upon  the  hearts  of  a  most  generous 
people.  He  has  made  their  cause  his  cause,  and,  in  return,  they 
have  made  his  cause  theirs. 

That  day,  the  personal  and  political  triumph  of  the  newly- 
discovered  yet  powerful  champion  of  General  Jackson's  policy 
settled  the  political  destiny  of  Morgan  County  for  several 
years.  The  speech  itself  is  remembered  to  this  day ;  and  the 
old  veterans  who  heard  Douglas  that  day,  and  who  have  heard 
him  a  hundred  times  since,  declare  that  he  has  never  yet  equal 
ed  the  first  speech  he  delivered  in  Jacksonville  in  March,  1834. 
Morgan  County,  from  that  day  forth,  became  Democratic ;  the 
Jacksonville  News  was  sustained  in  its  policy.  It  remain 
ed  Democratic  until  Douglas  had  moved  to  another  county, 
and  the  party,  feeling  secure  in  its  strength,  suffered  the  news 
paper  to  fail  for  want  of  support,  when  it  became  Whig,  and 
remained  a  Whig  county  until,  in  1858,  it  gave  a  majority  for 
Douglas  and  democracy. 

The  history  of  this  meeting  was  published  far  and  wide  in 
the  state,  and  there  was  a  great  desire  to  see  and  hear  the  man 
— the  youthful  David — who  had  compelled  an  orator  like  Lam- 
born  to  flee  from  a  meeting  in  his  own  town.  During  that 
year  an  election  was  held  for  governor  and  lieutenant  govern 
or.  Joseph  Duncan,  who  for  several  years  had  been  a  repre 
sentative  in  Congress,  was  elected  governor,  and  Alexander 
M.  Jenkins  lieutenant  governor.  Neither  had  a  majority :  there 
being  three  tickets  in  the  field,  Duncan  and  Jenkins  were  elect 
ed  by  a  plurality  of  votes.  The  election  took  place  in  August, 


F1KST   STRUGGLES   IN   ILLINOIS.  21 

and  the  new  officers  were  installed  in  January,  1835.  The  Leg 
islature  at  that  session  passed  an  act  changing  the  mode  of  ap 
pointing  certain  officers.  State's  attorneys  had  previously  been 
appointed  by  the  governor ;  this  act  made  them  elective  by  the 
General  Assembly  in  joint  convention.  The  name  of  Douglas 
was  suggested  for  the  office  of  attorney  for  the  first  judicial 
district.  His  friends — and  they  were  all  friends  who  knew  him 
— if  few,  were  ardent  in  his  support.  As  soon  as  the  act  was 
passed,  Mr.  Douglas  went  up  to  Vandalia,  where  the  Legisla 
ture  was  in  session.  His  competitor  was  JOHN  J.  HAKDIN,  one 
of  the  most  accomplished  lawyers  in  the  state,  a  gentleman  uni 
versally  esteemed  and  respected,  a  speaker  of  the  highest  or 
der,  an  experienced  prosecutor,  and  one  who  had  been  favora 
bly  known  to  the  people  of  the  district  for  years.  On  the  10th 
of  February,  1835,  the  Legislature  met  in  joint  convention  to 
elect  officers.  The  vote  for  state's  attorney  for  the  first  judi 
cial  circuit  being  taken — we  quote  the  Journal — "  Mr.  Stephen 
A.  Douglas,  Esq.,  received  38  votes,  and  John  J.  Har din,  Esq., 
34  votes  for  that  office ;  scattering,  2." 

In  the  recorded  list  of  the  names  of  those  voting  for  Mr. 
Douglas  on  that  occasion  is  that  of  the  now  venerable  John  S. 
Hacker,  at  that  time  a  member  of  the  State  Senate ;  Mr. 
Hacker,  in  1858,  was  dismissed  from  a  small  federal  office  be 
cause  he  refused  to  support  the  Republican  candidate  and  op 
pose  Douglas.  He  had  a  son  in  the  Legislature  of  1858-9 
who  voted  for  Douglas's  re-election  to  the  Senate.  Another 
name  recorded  in  the  list  of  those  who  voted  for  Douglas  in 
1835  is  that  of  James  Hampton,  who,  in  1859,  as  a  member  of 
the  Legislature,  had  the  pleasure  of  again  voting  for  him — on 
this  latter  occasion  for  his  re-election  to  the  Senate,  over  the 
combined  fury  and  bitter  hostility  of  the  Republican  party  and 
federal  authorities. 

The  election  of  Douglas  to  the  important  office  of  public 
prosecutor  in  the  most  important  circuit  of  the  state,  over  the 
celebrated  Hardin,  caused  great  discussion  throughout  all  Il 
linois.  Those  of  his  political  friends  who  knew  him  were  ex 
travagant  in  their  joy  and  confident  of  his  success  ;  those  who 
did  not  know  him  were  doubtful  if  a  mistake  had  not  been 
made,  and  his  enemies  openly  declared  the  election  an  outrage. 
One  of  the  "Whig  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  who  has  long 
since  expressed  the  highest  opinion  of  Mr.  Douglas's  ability, 


22  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

declared  that  the  election  was  wrong.  "  What  business,"  he 
asked,  "  has  such  a  stripling  with  such  an  office  ?  he  is  no  law 
yer,  and  has  no  law-books."  A  few  months  sufficed  to  change 
the  judge's  opinion,  and  a  few  years  more  found  him  recog 
nized  as  one  of  the  ablest  practitioners  at  the  bar  of  the  Su 
preme  Court.  We  have  seen  it  stated  on  high  authority  that 
during  the  time  Mr.  Douglas  filled  the  office  of  state's  attor 
ney,  not  a  single  indictment  drawn  by  him  was  ever  quashed ; 
and  there  was  probably  not  a  term  of  the  court  in  any  one  of 
the  many  counties  comprising  the  large  circuit  in  which  there 
were  not  more  or  less  criminal  cases,  embracing,  in  the  aggre 
gate,  crime  of  almost  every  grade.  His  success  as  a  public 
prosecutor,  and  his  personal  deportment  at  the  bar,  and  so 
cially  with  the  people  of  the  several  counties  to  which  the 
duties  of  his  office  carried  him,  rapidly  confirmed  the  high 
opinions  expressed  by  his  friends,  and  gradually  removed  all 
the  prejudice  which  had  been  created  against  him  by  oppo 
nents  at  the  time  of  his  election. 

An  incident  that  took  place  during  the  early  days  of  his  at- 
torneyship  will  illustrate  the  difficulties  he  had  to  encounter, 
and  the  promptness  and  energy  with  which  he  met  and  con 
verted  what  was  intended  as  a  painful  humiliation  into  a  proud 
personal  and  professional  triumph.  It  was  his  first  term  in 
M'Lean  County.  There  had  been  some  local  law  violated,  and 
the  number  of  offenders  were  numerous.  The  attorney  pro 
ceeded  in  the  discharge  of  his  duty  with  great  zeal.  He  sat 
up  all  night  writing  his  indictments,  and  actually  closed  the 
business  in  a  short  time.  The  Grand  Jury  found  the  bills  as 
prepared,  and  were  forthwith  discharged.  The  bar,  having  ob 
tained  a  hint  that  the  new  attorney  was  to  be  caught  and  pub 
licly  disgraced,  waited  the  denouement  with  anxiety.  The 
morning  after  the  Grand  Jury  had  been  discharged  the  crisis 
came.  A  member  of  the  bar,  then,  as  now,  one  of  the  most 
distinguished  lawyers  of  the  state,  at  the  opening  of  the  court, 
moved  to  quash  all  the  indictments  found  at  that  term,  fifty  in 
number,  on  the  ground  that  they  alleged  the  offenses  charged 
in  them  as  having  been  committed  in  "MClean  County,"  a 
county  unknown  to  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  the 
county  in  which  the  court  was  then  sitting,  and  in  which  the 
parties  were  residing,  being  "M'Lean  County."  In  other 
words,  that  the  prosecuting  attorney  had  misspelled  the  name 


FIRST   STRUGGLES    IN    ILLINOIS.  23 

of  the  county.  The  objection,  if  valid,  was  a  fatal  one  ;  and 
the  Grand  Jury  having  been  discharged,  there  was  no  oppor 
tunity  to  correct  the  error  in  spelling.  The  triumphal  glances 
of  the  bar,  the  sharp  inquiry  of  the  court  if  the  state's  attor 
ney  had  any  thing  to  say,  would  have  disheartened  even  a 
more  practiced  attorney.  The  objection  was  stated  in  clear 
and  forcible  terms ;  not  a  lawyer  at  the  bar  could  see  how  it 
was  to  be  overcome  ;  and  when  the  counsel  who  made  the  mo 
tion  took  his  seat,  the  laughter  and  merriment  at  the  counsel- 
table  was  only  equaled  by  the  loud  satisfaction  expressed  in 
the  lobby  by  the  friends  and  neighbors  of  the  accused.  The 
motion  was  an  entire  surprise  to  the  attorney — at  least  he  so 
expressed  himself.  He  insisted  that  before  the  court  should 
decide  the  question,  the  original  act  of  the  Legislature  estab 
lishing  the  county  should  be  produced ;  when  that  was  done, 
he  informed  the  court  he  would  possibly  have  something  to 
say  on  the  motion,  if,  indeed,  that  motion  was  persisted  in. 
This  was  said  with  so  much  confidence  and  earnestness,  and, 
withal,  the  position  taken  was  so  correct,  that  the  court  de 
cided  that  the  attorney  was  entitled  to  what  he  had  asked, 
and  that,  as  the  proof  required  was  so  easily  obtained,  counsel 
should  produce  the  act  establishing  the  county.  A  number  of 
acts  of  the  Legislature  were  at  once  produced,  all  referring  to 
the  county  as  "  M'Lean"  County,  and  the  evidence  that  that 
was  the  proper  legal  name  of  the  county,  and  had  been  so  rec 
ognized  through  several  years  of  legislation,  was  positively 
overwhelming.  During  the  reading  of  these  acts,  the  remarks 
of  counsel,  the  emphasis  with  which  the  orthography  of  the 
name  of  the  county  was  delivered,  was  terrible.  Several  per 
sons  approached  Douglas  and  whispered  that  he  would  save 
himself  much  useless  mortification  by  giving  up  the  contest, 
and  allowing  the  indictments  to  be  quashed.  He  refused. 
There  happened  at  that  time  to  be  no  copy  of  the  statute  es 
tablishing  the  county  in  Bloomington ;  Mr.  Douglas  insisted 
that  the  name  of  the  county  could  only  be  determined  legally 
by  the  recital  of  that  act,  and,  until  it  was  produced,  he  must 
insist  that  the  court  could  not  decide  that  the  indictments 
were  fatally  defective.  He  bid  the  counsel  who  made  the 
motion,  as  well  as  the  crowd  who  seemed  to  think  the  escape 
of  criminals  but  a  small  matter  compared  with  the  professional 
discomfiture  of  an  attorney,  to  beware  of  the  consequences  of 


24  LITE   OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

thus  pandering  to  a  contempt  of  the  appointed  officers  of  the 
law.  He  rejected  promptly  the  proposition  to  accept  the  se 
ries  of  statutes  read  as  defining  the  proper  name  of  the  county. 
The  matter  dropped  for  the  present. 

That  night,  and  the  next  day  and  evening,  the  legal  frater 
nity,  including  jurors,  witnesses,  and  litigants,  were  made 
merry  over  jocular  criticisms  upon  schoolmasters  turned  law 
yers,  upon  schoolmasters  being  unable  to  spell  the  name  of 
one  of  the  largest  counties  in  the  state.  Witticisms  flew  fast 
and  thick,  and  counsel  repeatedly  urged  that  they  dare  not 
proceed  with  business  until  the  question  was  settled  how  to 
spell  the  name  of  the  county.  Mr.  Douglas  kept  his  own  coun 
sel  :  that  he  felt  the  importance  to  him  personally  and  profes 
sionally  of  this  point  was  evident  to  all.  His  friends  could 
not  understand  the  courage  with  which  he  met  the  motion, 
nor  the  boldness  with  which  he  repelled  every  open  assault. 
They  imputed  his  defiant  tone  to  bravado,  and  his  demand  for 
the  statute  as  a  mere  excuse  for  delay,  to  gain  time  in  which 
to  make  up  his  mind  whether  to  resign  his  office  and  leave  the 
state,  or  to  go  back  to  keeping  school.  In  the  mean  time,  mes 
sengers  had  been  sent  to  Peoria  and  elsewhere  for  a  copy  of 
the  acts  of  1830-1. 

The  one  party  was  confident  that  its  production  would  be 
the  last  nail  in  the  professional  coffin  of  an  aspiring  individual 
who,  a  few  months  ago,  had  defeated  one  of  the  best  lawyers 
in  the  state,  and  had  attained  the  best  attorneyship  in  the  gift 
of  the  Legislature.  The  court  was  in  session  when  the  messen 
gers  returned ;  one  glance  at  the  book,  and  counsel  rose  and 
asked  the  court  to  dispose  of  the  motion  to  quash  the  indict 
ments.  All  was  excitement.  The  state's  attorney  had  also 
glanced  at  the  book.  He  rose  as  defiant  as  ever,  and  demand 
ed  the  reading  of  the  statute.  Lawyers  crowded  around  the 
counsel  who  held  the  statute  in  his  hand,  and  were  perfectly 
astounded  at  the  effrontery  of  the  prosecutor.  Profert  of  the 
statute  was  made;  the  court  asked  counsel  to  read  it,  and 
counsel  read,  amid  profound  silence,  the  words,  "  An  Act  to 
establish  M'Lean  County,"  and  turned  triumphantly  toward 
the  attorney  for  the  state.  That  gentleman,  instead  of  being 
annihilated  by  the  tone  or  manner,  or  by  the  words  read, 
quietly  stated  that  the  title  of  the  act  was  not  the  act  itself, 
and  demanded  that  the  whole  act  should  be  read.  The  court 


FIRST   STRUGGLES    US'   ILLINOIS.  25 

said  that  counsel  must,  as  it  was  demanded,  read  the  statute. 
He  at  once  read  the  first  section : 

"  Sec.  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  people  of  the  State  of  Illinois, 
represented  in  the  General  Assembly,  that  all  that  part  of 
country  lying  within  the  following  boundaries,  to  wit,  Begin 
ning,"  etc.,  etc.,  "  shall  constitute  a  new  county,  to  be  called 
McLean." 

There  was  a  pause — a  suspension  of  public  opinion — and  the 
silence  was  broken  by  the  demand  of  the  prosecutor  that  the 
other  sections  be  read.  Section  2  did  not  contain  the  name  of 
the  county ;  section  3  repeated  it  twice,  and  each  time  by  the 
name  of  "  McLean  ;"  sections  4  and  5  made  no  mention  of  the 
name,  and  section  6  and  last  named  Bloomington  as  the  "  seat 
of  justice  of  said  county  of  McLean."  The  attorney,  in  draw 
ing  his  indictment,  had  omitted  the  apostrophe,  and  capitalized 
the  C,  using  a  small  1.  He  had  employed  the  exact  letters  of 
the  body  of  the  statute ;  the  other  side,  seeing  a  capital  C,  a 
small  1,  and  no  apostrophe,  had  been  caught  in  the  very  trap 
in  which  they  thought  the  attorney  had  placed  himself.  Of 
course,  the  motion  was  overruled.  The  joke  was  turned,  the 
laugh  was  on  the  other  side ;  and  the  crowd,  now  regarding 
the  whole  thing  as  a  most  dexterous  plan  deliberately  laid  by 
the  prosecutor  to  catch  the  able  lawyers  with  whom  he  had 
to  contend,  gave  him  an  applause  and  a  credit  vastly  increased 
in  enthusiasm  by  the  previous  impression  that  he  had  been 
thoroughly  victimized  by  his  opponents. 

In  the  winter  of  1835-6 — the  one  following  his  election  as 
state's  attorney — the  expediency  of  uniting  the  party,  and  ef 
fecting  an  organization  so  as  to  concentrate  its  powers,  and  en 
able  them  to  elect  the  candidates  to  be  chosen  at  the  succeed 
ing  election,  was  duly  presented  by  Mr.  Douglas.  The  Jack 
sonville  News,  editorially  and  by  communication,  urged  the 
propriety  of  holding  a  county  convention  to  nominate  candi 
dates  to  be  supported  by  the  whole  party.  The  result  of  these 
proceedings  was  that  the  Democracy  did  unite,  did  effect  an 
organization,  and  did  call  a  county  convention,  the  first  ever 
held  in  Morgan  County.  It  was  a  new  and  hazardous  move 
ment.  The  county  was  entitled  to  six  members  of  the  Legis 
lature,  and  the  county  offices  to  be  filled  were  valuable.  It 
had  been  customary  for  all  candidates  to  run  relying  upon 
their  personal  popularity  and  their  personal  exertions  to  ob- 

B 


26  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

tain  s-upport.  The  proposition  to  limit  the  number  of  Demo 
cratic  candidates  to  one  individual  for  each  office  was  a  start 
ling  proposition.  Often  as  many  as  ten  or  fifteen  candidates 
would  be  before  the  people  for  the  same  office,  and  Mr.  Brooks 
assures  us  that  he  has  seen  no  less  than  eighteen  names  an 
nounced  as  candidates  for  the  office  of  sheriff.  The  county  was 
decidedly  Whig,  and  the  only  hope  of  success  was  to  unite  as 
far  as  possible  the  Democracy  upon  one  candidate  for  each  of 
fice. 

The  county  convention  was  held  in  April.  The  day  having 
arrived  for  its  assemblage,  Jacksonville  was  filled  with  people, 
drawn  thither  by  the  novelty  of  the  occasion.  The  Whigs 
were  there  in  large  numbers ;  they  confidently  expected  that 
Douglas  would  be  defeated  in  his  effort  to  reduce  the  aspira 
tions  of  individuals  to  the  measure  of  party  success.  The  fail 
ure  of  the  convention  was  predicted  from  the  beginning.  The 
candidates  to  be  selected  were  numerous:  two  senators,  six 
representatives,  one  sheriff,  three  county  commissioners,  one 
coroner,  and  perhaps  others  of  minor  importance.  The  num 
ber  of  aspirants  for  these  nominations  was  large.  The  conven 
tion  was  conducted  with  great  dignity  and  decorum.  The 
nominations  were  received  with  great  approbation,  every  pre 
cinct  being  represented  by  delegates,  and  by  a  large  attend 
ance  of  lookers-on.  Much  to  the  disappointment  of  the  Oppo 
sition,  there  was  but  one  dissatisfied  man — one  of  the  candi 
dates  for  sheriff  "  bolted"  the  nomination,  run  as  an  independ 
ent  candidate,  and,  though  personally  popular,  and  encour 
aged  in  his  course  by  the  Whigs,  suffered  a  most  inglorious  de 
feat.  The  Whigs,  alarmed  at  the  union  of  the  Democrats, 
united  upon  a  ticket  also.  At  the  head  of  the  ticket  for  repre 
sentatives  they  placed  the  gallant  John  J.  Hardin.  There  was 
no  man  on  the  Democratic  ticket  who  was  able  to  oppose  Har 
din  in  debate.  Douglas  at  once  took  the  stump,  and  met  Har 
din  every  where.  He  was  asked  why  he,  who  was  not  a  can 
didate,  should  canvass  the  county  when  the  whole  Democratic 
ticket  was  afraid  to  meet  their  opponents.  The  taunt  at  that 
time  had  its  force.  The  Democracy  wavered.  At  length,  so 
disastrously  did  the  contest  appear,  that  one  of  the  candidates 
on  the  Democratic  ticket  consented  to  give  way,  and,  by  unan 
imous  desire,  Mr.  Douglas  was  placed  on  the  ticket.  He  then 
met  Hardin,  and  together  they  canvassed  Morgan  County  as  it 


LEGISLATOR,  LAWYER,  POLITICIAN,  AND  JUDGE.  27 

had  never  been  canvassed  before,  and  perhaps  not  since.  The 
convention  system  inaugurated  by  Douglas  was  the  object  of 
special  attack.  He  bore  the  brunt  of  the  battle  as  he  has  ever 
done,  and  repelled  the  assaults  of  his  opponents.  He  appealed 
to  the  people  to  elect,  not  himself,  but  the  ticket.  He  fought 
the  first  fight  in  behalf  of  regular  nominations,  and  the  people 
of  Illinois  have  fought  that  fight  for  him  on  repeated  occasions 
since  then.  The  contest  continued  up  to  the  day  of  election. 
The  result  was  that  the  entire  Democratic  ticket  was  elected, 
save  and  except  one  of  the  candidates  for  representative.  Gen 
eral  Hardin,  leading  his  ticket,  was  elected  over  one  of  the 
Democratic  nominees.  This  determined  the  success  of  the  con 
vention  system,  and  the  success  of  Douglas  in  thus  redeeming 
an  old  Whig  county  was  properly  appreciated  by  the  Democ 
racy  throughout  the  state. 


CHAPTER  III. 

LEGISLATOR,  LAWYER,  POLITICIAN,  AND   JUDGE. 

ON  the  first  Monday  in  December,  1836,  Mr.  Douglas  took 
his  seat  in  the  most  important  Legislature  that  ever  assembled 
in  the  State  of  Illinois.  It  was  at  that  session  that  the  great 
project  of  internal  improvements  was  brought  to  a  successful 
legislative  approval.  The  country  was  wild  with  speculation. 
Schemes  of  improvements  were  pressed  from  every  quarter. 
We  have  already  given  a  list  of  the  acts  incorporating  rail 
road  and  canal  companies  passed  at  the  two  previous  sessions. 
The  United  States  Bank  was  no  more ;  state  banks  were  ex 
panding  with  a  fearful  momentum ;  the  State  of  Illinois  was 
pressed  to  become  a  partner  in  the  institutions  which  were  to 
furnish  capital  to  the  state  and  her  citizens  to  enable  them  to 
prosecute  an  advancement  that  was  to  equal  almost  in  celerity 
and  magnificence  the  magic  achievements  of  the  genii  that 
obeyed  Aladdin's  lamp  and  ring.  The  people  had  gone  be 
yond  their  representatives.  Many  counties  instructed  unwill 
ing  or  reluctant  representatives  to  vote  for  the  schemes  of 
promised  wealth  and  grandeur.  The  Legislature  met,  a  ma 
jority  of  its  members  pledged  personally  or  by  instructions  to 
vote  for  the  Internal  Improvement  Bill.  The  Legislature  met 


28  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

on  the  5th  of  December.  In  the  House  were  W.  A.  Richard 
son,  John  J.  Hardin,  James  Semple,  Robert  Smith,  Abraham 
Lincoln,  S.  A.Douglas,  John  Calhoun  (of  Lecompton  memory), 
John  A.  M'Clernand,  Augustus  C.  French,  James  Shields,  and 
other  men  whose  names  have  since  been  written  brightly  on 
our  national  history.  At  that  session  the  Hon.  R.  M.  Young 
was  elected  United  States  Senator  for  six  years  from  March, 
1837.  The  governor,  in  his  message,  reviewed  in  terms  of 
strong  condemnation  the  financial  policy  of  General  Jackson, 
impeaching  his  conduct,  and  censuring  his  motives  and  pur 
poses.  After  a  warm  debate,  that  part  of  the  message  refer 
ring  to  federal  affairs  was  referred  to  a  select  committee.  On 
the  23d  of  December,  the  committee,  through  the  Hon.  John  A. 
M'Clernand,  its  chairman,  made  a  report,  concluding  with  res 
olutions  approving  the  general  course  of  General  Jackson's  ad 
ministration,  and  disavowing  the  correctness  of  the  charges 
made  in  the  governor's  message.  The  debate  on  these  resolu 
tions  was  protracted  and  warm.  It  was  participated  in  by 
nearly  all  the  prominent  men  on  both  sides.  The  main  con 
test,  however,  was  between  Douglas  and  Hardin,  the  rival  rep 
resentatives  from  Morgan  County.  The  debate  covered  the  en 
tire  policy  of  General  Jackson.  The  resolutions  were  adopted. 

Mr.  Douglas  was  appointed  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Petitions.  Early  in  the  session  a  petition  was  presented,  pray 
ing,  on  behalf  of  one  Henry  King,  that  he  be  divorced  from  his 
wife  Eunice.  That  petition  was  committed  to  Mr.  Douglas's 
hands.  The  Legislature  had  for  several  years  been  accustom 
ed  to  granting  divorces,  and  applications  for  that  kind  of  re 
lief  were  annually  increasing  in  number  and  importance.  Mr. 
Douglas  made  a  report  upon  the  subject  of  divorces,  and  the 
powers  and  duties  of  the  Legislature  in  relation  to  the  mat 
ter,  concluding  with  the  following  resolution  :  "Resolved,  that 
it  is  unconstitutional,  and  foreign  to  the  duties  of  legislation, 
for  the  Legislature  to  grant  bills  of  divorce."  This  .was  de 
bated,  Mr.  Hardin  approving  of  the  resolution,  but  objecting  to 
the  word  "unconstitutional,"  which  he  moved  to  strike  out. 
Douglas  replied,  and  the  House,  by  a  vote  of  53  yeas  to  32 
nays,  adopted  the  resolution  as  reported.  That  was  an  end  to 
divorces  by  the  Legislature  in  Illinois. 

It  having  been  soon  demonstrated  that  some  system  of  in 
ternal  improvements,  to  which  the  state  was  to  be  a  party,  was 


LEGISLATOR,  LAWYER,  POLITICIAN,  AND   JUDGE.  29 

to  be  passed,  the  question  became  important  which  of  the  two 
leading  plans  suggested  should  be  adopted.  These  plans  were 
substantially  as  follows : 

1  st.  That  the  state  should  select  certain  leading  and  most 
important  works,  which  should  be  owned,  constructed,  and 
worked  exclusively  by  the  state.  2d.  That  the  state  should 
subscribe  to  a  certain  share — one  fourth,  one  third,  or  one 
half — of  the  stock  of  the  several  railroad  and  land  companies 
then  incorporated,  or  which  should  thereafter  be  incorporated 
by  the  state. 

These  plans  had  their  advocates  and  friends.  The  latter 
plan  was  the  favorite  of  the  speculators ;  under  it  the  several 
companies  could  organize  by  the  payment  of  a  few  dollars  on 
each  share,  and  then  obtain  the  subscription  by  the  state  in 
full.  Had  this  plan  been  adopted,  the  state  would  have  been 
the  contributor  of  all  the  actual  cash  capital,  and  would  have 
had  no  proprietorship  or  control  of  the  works.  We  have 
shown  that,  at  the  time  the  Legislature  met,  there  were  com 
panies  incorporated  authorized  to  construct  over  3400  miles 
of  railroad  and  canal ;  the  capital  to  do  this  work,  estimated  at 
the  moderate  sum  of  $30,000  a  mile,  would  have  made  an  ag 
gregate  (supposing  no  other  works  to  be  proposed)  of  over 
$100,000,000,  into  which  enterprise  the  state  would  soon  be 
led  to  at  least  one  third  of  the  entire  amount. 

Mr.  Douglas  was  personally  opposed  to  any  system  to  which 
the  state  was  to  be  a  party ;  but,  in  obedience  to  instructions, 
and  yielding  to  the  necessity  of  favoring  the  least  objection 
able  to  prevent  the  adoption  of  the  greater  enormity,  he  favor 
ed  the  first-mentioned  plan.  Accordingly,  early  in  the  session 
he  submitted  the  following  resolutions  indicating  the  plan 
which  he  viewed  most  favorably : 

Resolved,  that  the  Committee  on  Internal  Improvements  be 
instructed  to  report  a  bill  for  the  commencement  of  a  general 
system  of  internal  improvements,  as  follows : 

The  bill  shall  provide, 

1st.  For  the  completion  of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal. 

2d.  For  the  construction  of  a  railroad  from  the  termination 
of  said  canal  to  the  mouth  of  the  Ohio  River. 

3d.  For  the  construction  of  a  railroad  from  Quincy,  on  the 
Mississippi  River,  eastward  to  the  state  line,  in  the  direction 
of  the  Wabash  and  Erie  Canal. 


30  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

4th.  For  the  improvement  of  the  navigation  of  the  Illinois 
and  Wabash  Rivers. 

5th.  For  making  surveys  and  estimates  of  such  other  works 
as  may  be  considered  of  general  utility. 

Resolved^  that  as  the  basis  of  the  system,  the  improvements 
shall  be  constructed  and  owned  by  the  state  exclusively. 

Resolved,  that  for  the  purposes  aforesaid,  a  loan  of 
millions  of  dollars  should  be  effected  on  the  faith  of  the  state, 
payable  in  such  installments  and  at  such  times  as  shall  be  re 
quired  in  the  progress  of  the  works. 

Resolved^  that  portions  of  the  lands  granted  to  the  state  to 
aid  in  the  construction  of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal 
should  be  sold  from  time  to  time,  and  the  proceeds  applied  to 
the  payment  of  interest  on  the  said  loan,  until  the  tolls  on  the 
proposed  improvements,  together  with  such  other  means  as 
the  state  may  provide,  shall  be  sufficient  to  pay  the  interest  on 
such  loan. 

These  resolutions  were  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the 
"Whole,  and  upon  them,  as  well  as  upon  the  bill  which  was  sub 
sequently  reported,  long,  eventful,  and  important  discussions 
took  place.  This  plan  was  unfortunately  rejected.  It  pro 
posed  the  commencement  of  two  roads,  one  traversing  the 
state  from  north  to  south,  the  other  from  east  to  west,  leav 
ing  to  future  Legislatures  the  task  of  providing  for  such  other 
works  as  time,  experience,  and  practical  surveys  and  explora 
tions  might  recommend.  The  idea  of  constructing  two  rail 
roads  only  was  too  insignificant  for  the  magnificent  views  of 
that  day.  A  hundred  roads  would  not  have  answered  the 
pressing  demands  of  an  excited  people,  flushed  with  the  de 
ceitful  prosperity  of  an  inflated  system  of  paper  currency.  To 
confine  the  works  to  these  two  roads  would  also  have  prevent 
ed  the  necessity  for  the  state  to  embark  as  a  partner  in  the 
state  banks.  The  state  was  asked  to  authorize  an  increase  in 
the  banking  capital  of  the  state,  to  become  a  large  stockholder 
in  the  state  bank,  and  to  make  the  state  bank  and  its  branches 
the  depositories  and  fiscal  agents  of  the  state.  All  these  prop 
ositions,  presented  in  their  most  seductive  forms,  met  with  a 
firm,  uncompromising  hostility  from  Mr.  Douglas.  But  the 
state  was  mad ;  no  man  could  resist  the  storm  which  swept 
over  it;  and  the  entire  system — internal  improvements,  in 
crease  of  bank  capital,  subscription  to  the  stock  by  the  state, 


LEGISLATOR,  LAWYER,  POLITICIAN,  ANp   JUDGE.  31 

all  passed  by  the  most  decided  majorities,  in  February,  1837, 
and  the  Legislature  adjourned  on  the  8th  of  March  following. 

A  brief  synopsis  of  the  "Act  to  establish  and  maintain  a 
general  System  of  Improvements,"  approved  February  27, 
1837,  may  not  be  out  of  place  here. 

The  act  directs  a  survey  of  the  route  from  Charleston,  via 
the  county  seat  of  Clark  County,  to  the  most  eligible  point  on 
the  Great  Wabash  River  between  York  and  the  line  dividing 
the  states  of  Illinois  and  Indiana.  It  makes  appropriations  as 
follows  on  account  of  the  works  enumerated : 

1st.  Improvement  of  the  navigation  of  the  Great  Wabash  River.    $100,000 

2d.  For  removal  of  obstacles  to  steam-boat  navigation  in  Rock 
River 100,000 

3d.  For  the  Illinois  River  west  of  the  3d  principal  meridian....      100,000 

4th.  Kaskaskia  River 50,000 

5th.  Little  Wabash  River 50,000 

6th.  For  a  great  Western  mail  route  from  Vincennes  to  Saint 
Louis 250,000 

7th.  For  a  railroad  from  Cairo  to  some  point  on  the  southern 
termination  of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal,  via  Vandalia, 
Shelbyville,  Decatur,  Bloomington,  thence  via  Savannah  to  Galena  3,500,000 

8th.  For  a  southern  cross-railroad  from  Alton  to  Mount  Car- 
mel ;  railroad  from  Edwardsville  to  Shawneetown,  via  Lebanon, 
Nashville,  Pinckneyville,  Frankfort,  and  Equality 1,600,000 

9th.  For  a  northern  cross-railroad  from  Quincy,  via  Columbus, 
Clayton,  Mount  Sterling,  Meredosia,  Jacksonville,  Springfield, 
Decatur,  Sidney,  Danville,  and  thence  to  the  Indiana  state  line...  1,800,000 

10th.  For  a  branch  of  the  Central  Railroad  from  a  point  be 
tween  Hillsboro  and  Shelbyville,  thence  through  Coles  and  Edgar 
counties  to  the  Indiana  state  line 650,000 

llth.  For  a  railroad  from  Peoria,  through  Fulton,  Macomb, 
Carthage,  to  Warsaw 700,000 

12th.  For  a  railroad  from  Lower  Alton,  via  Hillsboro,  to  the 
Illinois  Central  Road 600,000 

13th.  For  a  railroad  from  Belleville,  via  Lebanon,  to  intersect 
the  Alton  and  Mount  Carmel  Railroad 150,000 

14th.  For  a  railroad  from  Bloomington  to  Mackinaw,  in  Taze- 
well  County,  there  to  fork — one  branch  to  connect  with  Peoria  and 
Warsaw  Railroad  at  Peoria,  the  other  branch  to  pass  Tremont  to 
Pekin 350,000 

A  person  who  will  take  up  the  map  of  Illinois  will  see 
in  the  above  scheme  of  improvements  how  carefully  Chicago 
is  avoided.  South  of  and  including  Peoria,  every  representa 
tive  and  senatorial  district  is  provided  with  one  or  more  rail 
roads  passing  through  them.  But,  to  make  the  bill  even  more 


32  1IFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

palatable,  the  following  provision  was  inserted,  being  the  15th 
appropriation : 

15th.  There  shall  be  appropriated  the  sum  of  $200,000  of  the  first  money 
that  shall  be  obtained  under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  to  be  drawn  by  the 
several  counties  in  a  ratable  proportion  to  the  census  last  made,  through 
which  no  railroad  or  canal  is  provided  to  be  made  at  the  expense  or  cost  of 
the  State  of  Illinois,  which  said  money  shall  be  expended  in  the  improvement 
of  roads,  constructing  bridges,  and  other  public  works. 

Section  21  authorized  the  board  of  fund  commissioners  to 
contract  for  loans,  etc.,  of  eight  millions  of  dollars  at  6  per  cent., 
redeemable  at  any  time  after  January  1,  1870.  Another  sec 
tion  provided  that  all  moneys  obtained  by  the  board  from  loans 
and  otherwise  should  be  deposited  in  some  safe  bank  or  banks. 
Section  33  authorized  the  commissioners,  in  locating  the  several 
roads  where  the  lines  did  not  touch  county  seats  or  important 
trading  towns,  to  construct  lateral  branches  of  said  railroads 
to  said  towns. 

Another  important  measure  of  that  session  was  the  continu 
ation  of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal,  which  had  previously 
been  commenced  by  the  state,  a  grant  of  land  to  aid  in  its  con 
struction  having  been  made  by  Congress.  Douglas  was  an 
active  and  earnest  supporter  of  this  great  work.  Upon  the 
best  plan  for  constructing  it  there  was  a  wide  diversity  of 
opinion.  The  "  deep  cut"  was  one  plan,  and  eventually  was 
adopted.  It  proposed  a  canal  to  be  fed  from  the  lake  at  Chi 
cago,  and  to  run  along  the  Illinois  River  to  its  present  termina 
tion,  having  all  the  necessary  lockage  and  dams.  The  other 
plan  was  to  put  locks  and  dams  upon  the  Illinois  River,  making 
it  navigable  for  steam-boats  up  to  the  very  highest  point,  and 
then  connecting  it  by  a  canal  to  be  constructed  thence  to  Chi 
cago.  Douglas  favored  the  latter  plan.  After  a  long  and  an 
imated  contest,  the  two  houses  found  themselves  unable  to 
agree.  The  House  of  Representatives  adopted  and  adhered 
to  for  many  weeks  that  plan  which  had  been  so  strenuously 
urged  and  approved  by  Douglas,  while  the  Senate  as  strenu 
ously  adhered  to  the  other  plan.  For  several  weeks  the  con 
test  between  the  two  houses  waxed  warm ;  at  last,  there  be 
ing  great  danger  that  the  whole  measure  would  fail,  the  Senate 
bill  was  somewhat  modified  (though  its  main  features  were  re 
tained)  by  a  committee  of  which  Douglas  was  a  member,  and 
was  passed,  he  giving  it  his  support,  as  better  than  no  bill  at 
all.  Subsequent  experience  has  not  confirmed  the  wisdom  of 


LEGISLATOR,  LAWYER,  POLITICIAN,  AND   JUDGE.  33 

the  Legislature.  The  plan  adopted  of  a  deep  cut  from  the 
lake  was  in  after  years  abandoned.  Had  the  plan'  proposed  by 
Douglas  been  adopted,  the  canal  could  have  been  completed 
for  a  sum  less  by  several  millions  than  would  have  been  re 
quired  to  carry  out  the  plan  adopted  by  the  Legislature.  His 
speeches  on  this  and  other  subjects  at  this  session  of  the  Leg 
islature  won  for  him  the  highest  credit ;  his  fame  as  an  orator, 
but  especially  as  a  ready  debater,  was  universal,  and  public 
men  in  all  parts  of  the  state  sought  his  acquaintance  and 
friendship. 

The  Legislature  adjourned  in  March,  having  laid  the  founda 
tion  of  a  public  debt  which,  for  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century, 
has  loomed  up,  in  all  its  hideous  proportions,  an  object  of  ter 
ror  and  of  oppression  to  the  people  of  the  great  and  fertile 
State  of  Illinois.  All  was  excitement ;  the  Legislature,  before 
adjourning,  elected  the  commissioners  for  the  several  works 
of  improvements,  and  the  number  of  officers  necessary  to  carry 
on  the  grand  system  was  by  no  means  a  small  one.  For  a  few 
weeks  all  seemed  prosperous  and  brilliant.  In  May  the  banks 
of  the  entire  country  suspended  specie  payments,  and  then 
came  a  revulsion.  The  state  bank  and  its  branches  went  down 
with  the  others ;  the  alliance  between  the  state  and  the  banks 
proved  an  unfortunate  one.  It  is  unnecessary  to  state  more 
than  the  general  result.  The  Illinois  banks  never  resumed  pay 
ment  ;  the  stock  sunk  very  low ;  their  paper  depreciated  as 
low  at  times  as  fifty  or  forty  cents  on  the  dollar ;  the  state  lost 
all,  or  nearly  all  that  it  had  subscribed ;  and,  after  five  or  six 
years,  the  charters  were  repealed,  and  Illinois  continued  with 
out  banks  until,  under  the  new  Constitution  some  years  later, 
a  general  banking  law  was  adopted.  The  Legislature,  at  that 
same  session,  passed  an  act  providing  for  the  removal  of  the 
seat  of  government  from  Vandalia  to  Springfield,  the  removal 
to  take  place  on  the  4th  of  July,  1839. 

In  April,  1837,  Mr.  Douglas  was  appointed  by  the  President 
register  of  the  land  office  at  Springfield,  to  which  place  he  re 
moved  at  once,  and  consequently  vacated  his  seat  in  the  Leg 
islature. 

In  consequence  of  the  panic  and  its  prospective  effects  upon 
the  system  of  internal  improvements,  Governor  Duncan  called 
a  special  session  of  the  Legislature  to  meet  in  July  of  that  year. 

The  signs  of  the  times  were  portentous  of  a  storm  such  as 

B  2 


34  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

the  country  had  never  experienced ;  the  commercial  world  had 
already  experienced  some  of  its  most  destructive  force.  The 
political  sky  was  dark  unto  blackness.  On  the  4th  of  March 
a  Democratic  president  had  been  inaugurated.  He  had  been 
elected  by  a  majority  most  decisive.  A  Congress  had  been 
chosen,  in  which  those  elected  as  his  party  friends  were  in  a 
large  majority.  Financial  ruin  and  general  bankruptcy  stood 
vividly  conspicuous  in  the  imagined  future.  Mr.  Van  Buren 
called  an  extra  session  of  Congress.  His  first  message  pro 
posed,  as  a  remedy  for  the  present  and  a  preventive  for  the 
future,  that  long-abused  and  now  cherished  scheme,  the  Sub- 
Treasury.  It  was  popularly  styled  the  "  Divorce  Bill."  It  was 
to  separate  forever  all  connection  between  the  banks  and  the 
national  government.  Mr.  Van  Buren  soon  found  himself  de 
serted  by  his  party  friends  not  only  in  Congress,  but  through 
out  the  country.  Nowhere  was  the  defection  greater  than  in 
Illinois.  The  delegation  in  Congress  (all  Democrats)  refused 
to  vote  for  the  Divorce  Bill — two  of  them  giving  as  their  rea 
son  a  desire  to  consult  with  their  constituents.  These  two 
subsequently  continued  Democrats,  and  one  of  them  is  now 
an  honored  and  venerable  member  of  the  party  in  Illinois ;  the 
other  never  returned,  and  finally  went  over  to  the  Opposition. 
The  governor  of  the  state,  elected  as  a  Democrat,  renewed  the 
assaults  upon  Mr.  Van  Buren  which  at  the  previous  session  he 
had  made  upon  General  Jackson.  Members  of  the  Legislature 
quailed  before  the  storm.  Many  faltered,  and  a  few  openly 
joined  the  Whigs.  Mr.  Buchanan,  with  his  peculiar  faculty 
of  finding  and  rewarding  old  traitors  to  the  Democratic  party, 
in  1858  rescued  from  an  oblivion  of  over  twenty  years,  to  which 
he  had  been  consigned  by  the  Democracy  of  Illinois,  one  of 
these  men  who  had  so  basely  abandoned  his  party  in  the  dark 
hour  of  its  peril,  and  conferred  upon  him  an  oifice  from  which 
an  honest,  honorable  gentleman  was  removed  because  he  was 
a  friend  of  Douglas!  In  1837  the  traitor  was  applauded  by 
the  Opposition  for  opposing  his  party,  and  in  1858  Mr.  Bu 
chanan  heaped  honors  upon  the  same  man  for  a  like  treachery ! 
The  Democracy  was  dismayed.  For  years  they  had  had  pos 
session  of  the  state  government  and  all  its  patronage.  The 
Legislature  and  the  governor,  both  elected  as  Democratic,  were 
now  opposed  to  them.  Necessity  demanded  earnest  and  prompt 
measures  for  defense.  The  Opposition  were  strong,  united, 


LEGISLATOR,  LAWYER,  POLITICIAN,  AND   JUDGE.  35 

and  led  by  able,  gallant  men.  As  soon  as  the  Legislature  as 
sembled  Mr.  Douglas  proceeded  to  Vandalia.  The  benefit  of 
the  convention  system,  in  uniting  and  concentrating  the  party 
in  a  close  contest,  had  been  demonstrated  by  him  in  Morgan 
County.  No  state  convention  of  either  party  had  ever  been 
held  in  Illinois.  A  meeting  of  the  Democratic  members  of  the 
Legislature  and  other  persons  was  held  on  July  27,  1837,  to 
adopt  some  means  to  produce  concert  of  action  by  the  party 
in  the  elections  of  the  ensuing  year,  and  to  prevent,  if  possible, 
any  farther  disintegration  of  the  party.  The  result  of  this 
meeting  was  a  call  for  a  Democratic  state  delegate  convention, 
to  meet  at  Vandalia  in  the  December  following,  to  nominate 
candidates  for  governor  and  lieutenant  governor.  A  commit 
tee  of  thirty  of  the  most  distinguished  Democrats  of  the  state 
was  appointed  to  prepare  and  publish  an  address  to  the  peo 
ple  of  the  state  upon  the  existing  condition  of  aifairs,  political 
and  financial.  Douglas,  Shields,  Richardson,  M'Clernand,  and 
Smith  were  members  of  this  committee.  A  state  central  com 
mittee  of  five  from  each  congressional  district  was  also  ap 
pointed.  Thus  was  formed  the  organization  of  the  Democratic 
party  in  the  State  of  Illinois — an  organization  which  has  re 
mained  unbroken  and  unconquered  for  nearly  a  quarter  of  a 
century.  In  another  place  will  be  found  its  progressive  his 
tory  from  1837  to  1860. 

The  address  shortly  after  appeared,  and  was  published  and 
circulated  extensively  throughout  the  state.  It  had  much  ef 
fect  in  staying  the  disaffection  in  the  party  produced  by  the 
general  prostration  of  business  and  the  urgent  counsels  of 
those  public  men  who  had  abandoned  the  party.  In  the  mean 
time,  political  discussions,  generally  of  the  warmest  character, 
were  frequent ;  and  at  most  of  these,  now  in  Springfield,  and 
now  in  some  other  city  or  county,  Douglas  braved  the  storm 
and  upheld  the  banners  of  the  Democratic  party.  The  finan 
cial  remedy  proposed  by  Mr.  Van  Buren  was  particularly  de 
fended.  It  fully  agreed  with  the  policy  which,  during  the 
winter  before,  he  had  so  laboriously  but  so  unavaUingly  urged 
upon  the  Legislature  with  respect  to  state  affairs.  He  had  op 
posed  and  denounced  the  connection  of  the  state  and  its  finan 
ces  with  the  banks,  and  had  predicted  that  the  results  of  such 
a  union  would  be  disastrous.  Time  unfortunately  proved  that 
the  predictions  were  well  founded. 


36  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

The  state  at  that  time  had  three  members  of  Congress, 
elected  from  separate  districts.  That  part  of  the  state  lying 
south  of  Morgan  and  Sangamon  counties  included  two  dis 
tricts,  while  the  vast  region  extending  northward  to  the  lake 
and  to  the  Wisconsin  line  was  all  embraced  in  one  district. 
The  convention  system  was  again  put  into  operation,  and  the 
several  counties  sent  delegates  to  Peoria  in  November,  1837, 
to  nominate  a  candidate  for  Congress  from  this  large  district 
— the  election  not  to  take  place  until  August,  1838,  and  the 
member  elected  not  to  take  his  seat  until  December,  1839. 
The  convention  was  held,  and  the  contest  for  nomination  was 
an  active  one.  Mr.  Douglas  was  nominated ;  he  was  under 
twenty-five  years  of  age  at  that  time.  The  vast  territory  em 
braced  within  the  district  had  been  rapidly  increasing  in  pop 
ulation  during  the  previous  five  years ;  the  work  on  the  canal 
had  drawn  thousands  of  laborers  to  that  part  of  the  state. 
Politicians  had  heretofore  confined  their  operations  to  the  cen 
tral  and  southern  part  of  the  state,  and  the  north  had*been 
suffered  to  go  uncared  for.  The  great  contest  of  1840  was 
approaching,  and  it  was  necessary  that  this  extensive  region 
should  be  visited  and  secured  for  the  party.  Mr.  Douglas 
was  thought  to  be  the  man  for  the  task.  At  the  election  in 
1836,  that  district  had  given  Harrison  a  majority  of  above  three 
thousand  over  Van  Buren.  Unless  it  were  attended  to,  the 
whole  state  would  be  in  peril.  With  but  faint  hopes  of  an 
election,  but  with  strong  determination  to  strengthen  the  party 
by  urging  a  union  and  combination  hitherto  unpracticed,  if  not 
unknown,  he  accepted  the  nomination.  His  opponent  was 
the  Hon.  John  T.  Stuart,  an  eminent  lawyer,  a  fine  speaker, 
and  a  gentleman  long  and  favorably  known  to  the  people. 
During  the  winter  the  contest  was  rather  of  a  "  scattering" 
character,  but  as  soon  as  the  spring  opened  sufficiently  to  ad 
mit  of  traveling,  the  two  candidates  set  out  upon  their  cam 
paign,  which,  commencing  in  March,  did  not  close  until  the 
very  night  before  election. 

This  canvass  is  regarded  as  the  most  wonderful,  under  all 
the  circumstances,  that  was  ever  held  in  the  West.  The  can 
didates  rode  from  town  to  town,  speaking  together  every  day 
except  Sundays.  The  man  who  takes  up  the  map  of  Illinois 
and  looks  at  the  territory  embraced  in  that  district,  will  not 
be  surprised  to  know  that,  although  the  candidates  spoke  six 


LEGISLATOR,  LAWYER,  POLITICIAN,  AND   JUDGE.  37 

days  a  week  for  five  months,  they  were  still  unable  to  visit 
every  place.  The  excitement  produced  by  the  contest  was 
very  great.  The  Democrats  at  first  had  but  little  hope  of 
electing  their  candidate,  but  as  account  followed  account  of 
the  wonderful  effect  produced  by  Douglas's  speeches,  their  ex 
pectations  took  a  different  turn.  As  the  day  of  election  ap 
proached  the  anxiety  became  intense.  It  required  great  pow 
ers  of  endurance  to  go  through  the  contest,  and  thousands 
whp  had  firmly .  believed  that  the  slight  frame  of  Douglas 
would  fail  under  the  protracted  effort  were  astounded  to  hear 
that  he  continued  as  fresh  to  all  appearances  as  his  large  and 
finely-formed  opponent.  In  August  the  election  took  place ; 
the  excitement  was  only  increased  by  the  imperfect  returns 
received.  There  was  no  telegraph  nor  railroads  at  that  time, 
and  returns  were  slow  in  reaching  county  seats,  and  still  slow 
er  in  reaching  the  seat  of  government.  For  weeks  the  state 
was  in  suspense.  It  was  soon  ascertained  that  the  aggregate 
vote  exceeded  36,000,  and  that  the  majority  either  way  would 
not  exceed  twenty.  Returns  came  imperfectly  made  up,  and 
were  sent  back  for  correction.  Errors  and  mistakes  were  dis 
covered,  and  friends  on  both  sides  were  industriously  engaged 
for  weeks  in  having  these  corrected.  Hundreds  of  votes  were 
cast  for  "  Stephen  Douglas,"  and  for  Douglas  with  various  oth 
er  and  misplaced  initials.  Votes  were  in  a  like  manner  given 
for  Mr.  Stuart  with  his  initials  and  given  names  transposed 
or  misstated.  The  majority,  however,  of  these  errors  were  on 
the  Douglas  tickets.  At  one  precinct  on  the  canal  Douglas 
lost  a  large  vote  by  a  trick  of  one  of  the  bosses,  who  had  tick 
ets  prepared  with  the  name  of  S.  A.  Douglas  printed  in  large 
type,  but  placed  as  a  candidate  for  the  Legislature.  At  last 
the  state  officers  announced  the  official  canvass,  and  by  it  Stu 
art  was  declared  to  have  a  majority  of  five  votes. 

On  the  4th  of  March  following  (1839)  Mr.  Douglas  address 
ed  a  letter  to  Mr.  Stuart,  setting  forth  the  difficulties  existing 
in  ascertaining  the  true  wishes  of  the  majority  of  the  people 
of  the  district,  and  proposing  that  they  should  sign  an  agree 
ment  to  the  following  effect : 

1.  That  the  state  officers  should  again  canvass  the  vote  ac 
cording  to  the  returns,  and  give  to  Stephen  A.  Douglas  and 
John  T.  Stuart  respectively  all  the  votes  polled  for  them,  with 
out  reference  to  the  spelling  of  their  names ;  or,  that  the 


38  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

state  canvassers  should  throw  out  all  the  misspelled  names, 
and  count  only  those  where  the  votes  were  recorded  for  John 
T.  Stuart  or  Stephen  A.  Douglas. 

2.  That,  in  case  the  state  officers  declined,  the  recount  be 
made  by  friends  chosen  by  the  parties. 

3.  That  three  persons  be  chosen  to  visit  each  county  and  ex 
amine  the  original  poll-books,  and  report  the  number  given  for 
Stuart  and  Douglas  respectively,  by  whatever  initial ;  or  re 
port  the  number  given  for  John  T.  Stuart  and  Stephen  A. 
Douglas. 

4.  That  both  resign  all  claim  to  the  election,  and  rim  the 
race  over  again. 

These  propositions,  he  said,  he  made  to  "  avoid  the  trouble, 
excitement,  delay,  and  expense  of  a  contested  election." 

Mr.  Stuart,  on  the  13th  of  March,  answered  by  respectfully 
yet  firmly  declining  each  and  every  of  the  propositions,  as  he 
had  no  doubt  as  to  the  fact  of  his  election.  That  ended  the 
matter  so  far  as  Mr.  Douglas  was  concerned.  He  had  resigned 
his  office  to  enter  the  canvass  in  1838,  and  had,  during  the 
whole  year,  neglected  his  professional  pursuits.  He  had  nei 
ther  the  time  nor  the  means  to  expend  in  prosecuting  a  con 
test  for  the  seat. 

The  Democratic  State  Convention,  which  met  in  December, 
1837,  nominated  James  W.  Stephenson  for  governor,  and  John 
S.  Hacker  for  lieutenant  governor.  In  April,  1838,  Mr.  Hacker 
withdrew  from  the  contest,  and  Mr.  Stephenson,  who  was 
charged  with  being  a  defaulter,  also  withdrew.  Being  a  pub 
lic  defaulter  had  not,  at  that  time,  become  such  a  political  vir 
tue  as  to  entitle  an  individual  guilty  of  it  with  the  exclusive 
management  and  control  of  the  party.  It  remained  for  a  pres 
ident  in  1858  to  make  official  crime  the  badge  of  executive 
approbation  in  Illinois.  The  state  convention  was  recalled  to 
assemble  June  5th,  1838,  and  Thomas  Carlin  was  nominated 
for  governor,  and  S.  H.  Anderson  for  lieutenant  governor. 
These  gentlemen  were  subsequently  elected,  and  entered  upon 
the  duties  of  their  office  in  January,  1839. 

The  renown  achieved  by  Douglas  in  his  campaign  with  Mr. 
Stuart  was  most  extensive.  He  was  not  considered  as  defeat 
ed  ;  his  election  was  claimed  by  the  Democratic  party ;  and 
the  state  officers,  all  of  them  belonging  to  the  Opposition,  were 
charged  with  having  patched  up  the  returns  in  order  to  give 


LEGISLATOR,  LAWYER,  POLITICIAN,  AND   JUDGE.  39 

the  certificate  to  his  opponent.  This  charge,  however,  was 
untrue  as  far  as  the  state  canvassers  were  concerned,  though, 
doubtless,  it  was  justly  made  against  some  of  the  county  of 
ficials.  On  the  9th  of  October,  1838,  there  was  a  great  ban 
quet  given  at  the  city  of  Quincy  to  Governor  Carlin  and  Mr. 
Douglas,  at  which  the  latter  was  the  great  object  of  interest. 
One  of  the  active  men  at  that  demonstration  was  the  Hon.  I. 
IN".  MOKEIS,  who  now  represents  that  district  in  Congress. 
The  Opposition  were  not  indifferent  to  the  result.  On  the  29th 
of  September  a  grand  barbacue  was  given  at  Springfield,  in 
celebration  of  the  great  victory  gained  in  the  defeat  of  Doug 
las.  It  was  attended  by  all  the  leading  Whigs  of  the  state,  and 
so  important  was  the  result  considered  that  one  of  the  judges 
of  the  Supreme  Court  left  the  bench  and  presided  on  the  occa 
sion. 

Mr.  Douglas,  after  the  election  was  over,  entered  into  part 
nership  with  a  Mr.  Urquhart,  and  announced  his  intention  to 
devote  himself  exclusively  to  the  law.  But  it  was  idle  for  him 
to  attempt  to  withdraw  from  politics.  Already  he  had  become 
the  acknowledged  champion  of  democracy,  and  the  ablest  de 
bater  on  the  stump.  Nor  was  the  acknowledgment  of  his 
ability  confined  to  his  efforts  on  the  stump ;  he  already  was 
distinguished  at  the  bar,  and  in  all  important  cases  he  was 
found  on  one  side  or  the  other ;  yet,  whenever  the  party  de 
manded  a  defense,  whenever  Democratic  principles  required 
an  advocate,  he  was  called  from  his  office,  and  put  forward  to 
meet  the  array  of  the  opposition.  At  that  time  some  contro 
versy  arose  about  the  famous  "  resolutions  of  '98,"  which  had 
been  assailed  or  ridiculed  by  the  Whig  orators  of  that  vicinity, 
and  on  the  9th  of  March,  1839,  an  immense  meeting  was  held 
at  Springfield,  and  Mr.  Douglas  addressed  it  in  a  learned  and 
able  explanation  and  defense  of  those  resolutions.  The  speech 
is  represented  by  the  newspapers  of  the  time  as  having  si 
lenced  the  Opposition  in  their  derisive  assaults  upon  those  ven 
erable  landmarks  of  Democratic  truth. 

The  Legislature  met  in  the  winter  of  1838-'39,  and,  on  the 
9th  of  January,  Governor  Carlin  appointed  the  Hon.  John  A. 
M'Clernand  secretary  of  state,  and  communicated  the  nomina 
tion  to  the  Senate.  The  Senate,  instead  of  confirming  or  re 
jecting  the  nomination,  adopted  a  resolution  declaring  that, 
as  there  was  no  vacancy  in  the  office  of  secretary  of  state,  the 


40  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

governor  could  not  appoint  any  person  to  the  office.  The  ef 
fect  of  this  action  of  the  Senate  was  to  keep  Mr.  Alexander  P. 
Field,  the  then  secretary  of  state,  in  his  office,  and  to  deny  to 
the  governor  the  power  of  removal.  The  feeling  growing 
out  of  this  action  was  very  great.  After  repeated  efforts  to 
obtain  the  office,  after  the  adjournment  of  the  Legislature,  a 
bill  was  filed  before  the  Circuit  Court,  and  the  case  of  the 
People,  ex  relatione  John  A.  M'Clernand  vs.  A.  P.  Field,  came 
up  in  the  Circuit  Court  before  Judge  Breese,  and  was  argued 
elaborately.  Judge  Breese  delivered  a  very  able  opinion,  con 
firming  the  power  of  the  governor  to  remove  the  secretary  of 
state.  An  appeal  was  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court.  In  July, 
1839,  the  Supreme  Court  met  at  Springfield,  and  the  appeal 
was  taken  up.  The  array  of  counsel  was  brilliant :  Levi  Davis, 
Cyrus  Walker,  Colonel  Field,  and  Justin  Butterfield  repre 
sented  Mr.  Field,  and  Wickliffe  Kitchell  (attorney  general), 
Jesse  B.  Thomas,  S.  A.  Douglas,  J.  A.  M'Clernand,  and  James 
Shields  appeared  for  the  relator.  The  argument  occupied  four 
entire  days,  and  is  represented  by  contemporaneous  writers  as 
having  been  of  the  very  highest  character.  Mr.  Douglas's  ar 
gument  was  regarded  as  so  conclusive  by  the  parties  agreeing 
with  him  that  it  was  published  in  extenso  in  the  papers  of 
that  day. 

The  court  consisted  of  four  judges.  Judge  Brown  set  up 
the  plea  of  being  a  relative  of  one  of  the  parties,  and  refused 
to  sit  in  the  cause ;  Judges  Lockwood  and  Wilson  overruled 
the  decision  of  Judge  Breese,  thus  confirming  the  right  of  Mr. 
Field  to  retain  the  office  in  defiance  of  the  governor.  Judge 
Smith  dissented  from  this  opinion. 

For  some  considerable  time  previous  to  this  decision,  a  party 
had  been  gradually  forming,  and  daily  growing  more  numer 
ous,  having  for  their  purpose  a  constitutional  reorganization 
of  the  Supreme  Court.  This  decision  confirmed  many  in  the 
impression  that  the  court  had  become  a  mere  political  instru 
ment,  which,  through  the  exercise  of  judicial  functions,  was  to 
be  used  to  promote  party  ends.  The  court,  invested  as  it 
was,  together  with  the  governor,  with  the  veto  power,  was  a 
formidable  auxiliary  of  the  Whig  party.  Its  members,  as  the 
Council  of  Revision,  could  hold  governor  and  Legislature  in 
check,  and  accomplish  indirectly  all  the  ends  sought  by  the 
minority.  A  new  issue  was  from  the  date  of  this  decision 


LEGISLATOR,  LAWYER,  POLITICIAN,  AND   JUDGE.  41 

formally  presented  to  the  people,  and  that  issue  was  a  reorgan 
ization  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  in  favor  of  that  proposition 
the  entire  Democratic  party  in  the  state  soon  found  itself  ar 
rayed. 

On  the  19th  of  November,  1839,  the  Whig  candidates  for 
presidential  electors  having  already  been  nominated,  the  great 
presidential  campaign  of  1840  was  opened  at  Springfield. 
Cyrus  Walker,  the  Whig  candidate,  opened  the  debate,  and 
Douglas  was  summoned  to  reply.  The  effect  of  that  reply, 
though  perfectly  satisfactory  to  the  Democracy,  was  not  so  to 
the  Whigs.  Mr.  Lincoln  was  sent  for,  and,  in  the  evening, 
made  a  long  speech,  to  which  Douglas  again  replied.  The  de 
bate  became  an  animated  one,  and  was  continued  till  midnight, 
Douglas  replying  to  Lincoln  and  Walker  as  they  successively 
relieved  each  other  in  the  discussion.  On  the  next  day  he 
addressed  a  Democratic  mass  convention,  and  made  a  very 
elaborate  speech  on  the  subject  of  the  United  States  Bank. 
On  the  9th  of  December  the  second  Democratic  state  conven 
tion  assembled  at  Springfield,  and  among  the  delegates  were 
Judge  Breese,  who  had  by  that  time  avowedly  united  with  the 
Democracy,  Willis  Allen,  J.  A.  M'Clernand,  W.  A.  Richard 
son,  Lyman  Trumbull,  James  Shields,  J.  D.  Caton,  now  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  S.  A.  Douglas,  Murray  M'Connell,  and  others 
well  known  in  the  history  of  the  state.  In  March,  General 
Harrison  having  been  nominated  for  the  presidency  by  the 
Harrisburg  Convention,  the  political  fires  were  blazing  exten 
sively.  A  political  discussion,  continuing  a  whole  week,  took 
place  at  Jacksonville,  in  which  Colonel  Hardin  and  Colonel 
Baker,  now  of  California,  took  the  Whig  side,  and  Mr.  Lam- 
borne  and  Mr.  Douglas  the  Democratic  side.  On  the  last  day 
of  the  discussion  Mr.  Douglas  was  announced  to  make  the 
closing  speech,  and  a  newspaper  now  before  us  containing  the 
account  of  the  meeting  states  that  the  people  came  even  from 
adjoining  counties  on  horseback  and  in  every  description  of 
vehicle  to  hear  him.  In  April  he  was  nominated  for  the  Leg 
islature  in  Sangamon  County,  but  declined. 

On  the  6th  of  January  the  House  of  Representatives  inves 
tigated  certain  charges  preferred  against  the  Hon.  John  Pear 
son,  one  of  the  circuit  judges.  Mr.  Douglas,  together  with 
Messrs.  Lamborn,  Shields,  Turney,  and  M'Connell,  undertook 
the  defense,  and  the  result  was  a  complete  vindication  of  the 


42  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

persecuted  gentleman.  During  the  summer  of  1840  Mr. 
Douglas's  services  were  in  almost  daily  requisition.  The  hard 
cider  and  log-cabin  campaign  was  prosecuted  with  the  most 
violent  energy.  Harrison  was  a  Western  man  ;  Democrats  in 
all  parts  of  the  Union  were  abandoning  the  party,  and  it  was 
confidently  proclaimed,  and  nowhere  than  in  Illinois  more 
strongly  believed,  that  "  Van  was  a  used  up  man."  Yet  the 
gallant  Democracy  of  Illinois  remained  true  to  their  flag, 
true  to  their  principles.  The  contest  was  a  severe  one.  Illi 
nois  had  many  able  and  accomplished  Whigs — men  powerful  in 
debate,  and  powerful  with  the  people  because  of  their  personal 
character  and  professional  abilities.  The  Democratic  candi 
dates  for  electors  had  as  much  as  men  could  do  to  follow  up 
and  meet  their  opposing  candidates,  and  well  and  ably  did 
they  perform  their  duty.  But  to  Douglas  was  in  a  great 
measure  confided  the  task  of  encountering  several  able  and 
distinguished  Whigs,  who,  though  not  on  the  electoral  ticket, 
were  indefatigable  in  their  exertions  on  the  stump.  For  seven 
months  Mr.  Douglas  devoted  his  time  to  the  attempt  to  pre 
vent  Illinois  falling  into  the  hands  of  the  Opposition.  He 
traversed  all  the  doubtful  counties,  strengthening  the  despond 
ing,  and  giving  new  hope  to  the  fearful.  The  result  is  known. 
At  the  August  election  Democratic  majorities  in  both  branches 
of  the  Legislature  were  elected,  and  the  popular  vote,  though 
close,  was  Democratic.  From  August  to  November  the  bat 
tle  was  waged  with  renewed  vigor.  The  August  elections 
pointed  out  the  localities  in  which  the  respective  parties  were 
weak,  and  to  these  points  Douglas  was  dispatched,  and  not 
until  the  day  of  election  in  November  did  he  rest  from  his  la 
bors.  The  state  was  saved  to  the  Democratic  party.  In  the 
general  defeat  throughout  the  Union,  Illinois  was  one  of  the 
seven  states  that  chose  Democratic  electors,  and,  save  New 
Hampshire,  stood  alone  in  the  Northern  States  in  maintaining  a 
Democratic  supremacy.  It  is  no  disparagement  to  the  hund 
reds  of  noble  spirits  who,  in  behalf  of  the  Democratic  party, 
fought  the  glorious  fight  of  1 840  on  the  soil  of  Illinois,  to  say 
that  to  Mr.  Douglas  was  due  much  of  the  honor  and  credit  of 
the  result.  His  strong  constitution  and  powers  of  physical  en 
durance  rendered  him  able  to  perform  labors  which  other  men, 
no  matter  what  might  be  their  mental  gifts,  w^ould  have  been 
unable  to  withstand.  From  one  end  of  the  state  to  the  other, 


LEGISLATOR,  LAWYER,  POLITICIAN,  AND   JUDGE.  43 

the  "  Little  Giant"  was  recognized  and  applauded  as  the  most 
conspicuous  of  the  many  heroes  of  that  contest.  His  reputa 
tion  as  an  orator,  and  as  the  forcible  exponent  of  political  prin 
ciples  was,  by  his  deeds  in  this  memorable  campaign,  raised  to 
the  highest  point  in  the  opinion  of  his  party.  He  had  already 
outstripped  men  who  were  veterans  when  he  entered  the  state, 
and  seven  years  from  the  day  he — a  sickly,  feeble  stranger-boy 
— first  trod  the  prairies  of  Illinois,  his  name  was  as  familiarly 
known,  and  his  great  abilities  as  fully  admitted,  as  were  the 
name  and  abilities  of  any  other  man  in  the  state. 

In  the  State  of  Illinois  there  had  been  for  many  years  a  cus 
tom  of  holding,  during  the  sessions  of  the  Legislature,  a  "  third 
house,"  in  which  the  lobby,  composed  of  all  persons  attending 
at  the  seat  of  government,  were  admitted  as  members.  Those 
who  have  witnessed  the  scenes  at  the  sessions  of  the  "lobby" 
of  late  years  will  not  discover  in  the  broad  jokes  and  general 
hilarity  that  importance  and  great  benefit  which  in  olden 
times  resulted  from  "  Lord  Coke's"  assembly.  The  best  minds 
and  the  best  hearts  were  not  always  to  be  found  in  the  legis 
lative  halls.  The  best  lawyers  in  the  state  were  generally  in 
attendance  on  the  Supreme  Court  during  the  meeting  of  the 
Legislature,  and  these  men  were  often  found  in  the  meetings 
of  the  lobby.  Here  were  discussed  all  the  great  measures 
pending  before  the  Legislature,  and  it  was  often  at  these  meet 
ings  that  members  of  the  Legislature  heard  arguments  which, 
for  ability  and  research,  were  never  equaled  within  the  Senate 
or  the  House.  Douglas  was  an  active  member  of  this  house. 
In  the  discussions  of  the  many  questions  there  presented,  he 
was  one  of  the  ablest  and  one  of  the  most  conspicuous.  Here 
was  discussed  the  bank  question,  the  internal  improvements, 
the  reorganization  of  the  judiciary,  the  subject  of  alien  suf 
frage,  and,  by  no  means  the  least  important,  the  great  question 
of  repudiation. 

The  Legislature  met  on  the  7th  of  December,  1840,  both 
branches  being  Democratic.  A  majority  of  the  Senate  now 
being  in  favor  of  sustaining  the  governor  in  the  removal  of  the 
secretary  of  state,  Mr.  Field  abandoned  the  struggle  and  re 
signed  the  office.  The  governor,  on  the  27th  of  January,  1841, 
appointed  Mr.  Douglas  secretary  of  state. 

This  session  was  destined  to  be  one  of  great  importance  to 
the  state,  to  the  Democratic  party,  and  to  Mr.  Douglas  person 
ally. 


44  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

The  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  adopted  in  1819, 
contained  a  provision  authorizing  every  free  white  male  "in 
habitant"  above  the  age  of  twenty-one  years  to  vote  at  all  elec 
tions.  Under  this  provision,  from  the  earliest  settlement  of 
the  state,  all  persons  who  had  become  actual  inhabitants  of  the 
state,  whether  naturalized  or  not,  were  permitted  to  vote.  The 
election  for  President  in  1836  had  shown  that  Mr. Van  Buren's 
majority  barely  exceeded  three  thousand ;  and  it  was  supposed 
that  if  the  "  alien  vote,"  as  it  was  called,  could  be  thrown  out 
at  future  elections,  the  state  would  fall  into  the  hands  of  the 
Opposition.  From  that  time  forth  the  rejection  of  the  alien 
vote  became  a  part  of  the  policy  of  the  Opposition.  It  was  im 
portant  that  the  question  whether  these  men  were  legal  voters 
or  not  should  be  decided  by  some  judicial  authority.  The  Op 
position,  therefore,  selected  the  Jo  Daviess  circuit  in  which  to 
strike  down  a  large  body  of  the  Democratic  voters.  At  the 
congressional  election  in  1838,  one  of  these  "inhabitants"  of 
the  State  of  Illinois,  being  unnaturalized,  voted  for  Mr.  Doug 
las.  His  vote  had  been  received  by  the  judges  of  election 
with  a  full  knowledge  on  their  part  that  he  had  never  been  nat 
uralized.  The  Opposition,  through  a  Mr.  Houghton,  instituted 
a  qui  tarn  prosecution  against  Mr.  Spraggins,  one  of  the  judges. 
The  case  was  tried ;  and  the  Circuit  Court  (Judge  Stone)  be 
fore  whom  the  case  was  tried  denied  the  authority  of  the  state 
to  confer  the  privilege  of  voting  upon  an  unnaturalized  alien, 
and  rendered  judgment  against  the  defendant.  This  decision, 
in  its  practical  effect,  cut  off  at  least  one  half  the  Democratic 
vote  in  the  great  northern  district  of  the  state.  It  was  fatal  to 
the  Democratic  party,  which,  bereft  of  that  vote,  would  be  in 
a  minority  in  the  popular  vote  of  the  state,  and  would  be  in  a 
minority  in  a  large  number  of  senatorial  and  representative 
districts  then  represented  by  Democrats.  If  allowed  to  stand 
as  law,  that  decision  would  have  the  effect  of  delivering  the 
state  and  all  the  branches  of  the  government  to  the  Whig  par 
ty.  Mr.  Douglas  saw  the  importance  of  the  decision  not  only 
to  the  thousands  who  were  disfranchised  by  it,  but  also  the  im 
portance  in  a  political  or  party  view.  Though  a  stranger  to 
the  party  convicted  as  well  as  to  the  voter,  as  soon  as  he  heard 
of  the  decision  he  voluntarily  interfered,  and  had  the  cause 
taken  "to  the  Supreme  Court  for  review.  At  this  time  he  stood 
almost  alone  at  the  bar  in  the  opinion  he  expressed,  that  the 


LEGISLATOE,  LAWYER,  POLITICIAN,  AND    JUDGE.  45 

regulation  of  the  matter  of  suffrage,  within  their  respective 
limits,  was  one  of  those  rights  which  the  states  had  never  sur 
rendered  to  the  federal  government ;  that  each  state  had,  with 
in  its  own  limits,  the  full  and  exclusive  right  and  authority  to 
admit  to  the  privilege  of  voting  any  and  every  class  of  persons 
she  might  think  proper.  The  right  to  vote  was  not  necessari 
ly  or  exclusively  pertaining  to  citizenship.  Five  sixths  of  the 
free  white  citizens  of  the  United  States  were  denied  by  law 
the  privilege  of  voting.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
expressly  conceded,  in  the  second  section  of  the  first  arti 
cle,  to  the  states  the  exclusive  control  of  the  privilege  of  vot 
ing.  At  that  time,  as  has  been  stated,  Mr.  Douglas  almost 
stood  alone  at  the  bar  in  maintaining  this  view  of  the  case. 
Men  were  led  off  from  the  true  view  of  the  case  by  the  very 
plausible  theory  that,  if  aliens  were  allowed  to  vote,  the  elec 
tion  of  a  President  might  possibly  be  decided  by  their  vote ; 
and  that  the  Constitution,  in  providing  for  a  naturalization  law, 
intended  that  aliens  who  desired  to  participate  in  the  political 
privileges  of  the  country  should  first  become  citizens.  Those 
who  took  this  view  of  the  case  forgot  that,  however  strong 
their  argument  might  be  against  the  policy  of  a  state  admit 
ting  aliens  to  the  privilege  of  voting,  yet  that  wras  not  the 
question  at  issue.  The  point  depending  was  not  whether  the 
state  ought  to  admit  aliens  to  vote,  but  whether  the  state,  hav 
ing  already  conferred  the  privilege,  had  the  power  and  author 
ity  to  do  so  or  not.  The  case  was  the  first  involving  the  point 
ever  tried  in  the  United  States.  Notwithstanding  that  it  was 
generally  understood  that  a  majority  of  the  Supreme  Court 
were  against  him,  Mr.  Douglas  fearlessly  undertook  the  case, 
which  has  since  become  so  well  known.  Its  title  was,  Thomas 
Spraggins,  appellant,  vs.  Horace  H.  Houghton,  appellee.  The 
argument  was  long  and  elaborate,  and  took  place  at  the  winter 
term  of  1839-40.  Upon  its  decision  hung  the  future  success 
or  defeat  of  the  Democratic  party.  The  counsel  were,  Doug 
las  and  Murray  M'Connell  for  the  appellant ;  and  Cyrus  Walk 
er,  Schuyler  Strong,  and  Justin  Butterfield  for  the  appellee. 

The  court  took  the  case  under  advisement  until  the  next 
term.  In  June,  1840,  the  court  reassembled,  and  commenced 
its  business  by  reading  opinions  and  entering  judgments  upon 
those  cases  heard  but  not  decided  at  the  previous  term.  The 
state,  at  the  time,  was  all  excitement ;  cider  barrels,  log  cabins, 


46  LIFE    OP    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

and  coon-skin  emblems  were  in  the  height  of  popular  estima 
tion.  The  Democracy  of  Illinois  were  alarmed ;  they  required 
every  vote  that  could  be  procured  to  save  the  state.  The 
"  alien  vote,"  numbering  several  thousands  in  the  state,  was 
indispensable.  In  a  conversation  with  Judge  Smith,  Mr.  Doug 
las  learned  that  Judges  Lockwood,  Brown,  and  Wilson  had 
agreed  upon  a  decision  in  the  case  of  Spraggins  vs.  Houghton, 
and  that,  at  the  opening  of  the  term,  they  would  announce  it, 
and  that  the  decision  would  sustain  the  judgment  of  the  court 
below.  This  intelligence  was  important.  The  moment  such 
a  decision  as  that  should  be  rendered  by  the  Supreme  Court, 
the  Democracy  would  be  shorn  of  their  strength,  and  the  state 
would  be  hopelessly  "Whig.  It  would  be  useless  to  carry  on 
the  campaign,  for  the  loss  of  the  "  alien"  vote  would  place  the 
Democracy  in  a  hopeless  minority.  How  to  prevent  the  calam 
ity  was  a  serious  question.  Every  possible  mode  was  consid 
ered,  and  rejected  as  vain.  At  last  he  read  the  record  sent  up 
by  the  clerk  of  the  Circuit  Court.  It  was  defective ;  it  con 
tained  errors ;  it  lacked  some  things  which  had  been  carelessly 
omitted.  When  the  court  opened,  and  the  judges  had  unrolled 
their  opinions,  preparatory  to  pronouncing  judgment  in  the  case 
of  Spraggins  vs.  Houghton — a  judgment  so  fatal,  if  rendered 
—-Mr.  Douglas  rose  and  stated  that  the  case  was  one  of  the  very 
highest  importance.  It  was  important  to  the  persons  who 
were  involved  in  it,  but  it  was  of  still  greater  importance  to 
thousands  of  others  in  their  state.  It  was  a  case  involving  the 
political  status  of  a  very  large  portion  of  the  people  of  Illi 
nois.  It  was  therefore  necessary  that  the  judgment  of  the 
court  should  be  final,  whichever  way  it  might  be.  Upon  an 
examination  of  the  record  in  the  case  since  the  argument,  he 
had  discovered  that  it  was  fatally  defective,  so  much  so  that 
no  judgment  could  be  rendered  on  it.  He  was  unwilling  to 
accept  a  judgment  in  a  matter  of  such  vast  importance  to  his 
clients  and  to  the  public,  when  that  judgment,  in  consequence 
of  defects  in  the  record,  would  be  of  no  force  or  effect.  He 
therefore  moved  that  the  cause  be  dismissed.  This  motion 
was  resisted,  and  was  set  down  for  argument.  It  was  subse 
quently  argued,  and,  without  any  decision  on  the  motion,  the 
whole  case  was  continued  over  until  the  next  winter  term. 

Thus  was  prevented  a  decision  which  at  this  day  would  have 
but  few  defenders,  and  thus  was  saved,  in  a  day  of  extremity, 


LEGISLATOR,  LAWYER,  POLITICIAN,  AND   JUDGE.  47 

a  vote  which,  at  the  election  in  November  following,  enabled 
the  Democratic  party  to  retain  their  ascendency  in  the  State 
of  Illinois. 

The  legal  principle  asserted  by  Mr.  Douglas  for  the  first 
time  in  this  celebrated  case,  and  then  supposed  to  be  so  un 
sound,  was  afterward  elaborately  discussed  by  him  in  Con 
gress,  and  is  now  the  well-established  doctrine  of  all  parties  in 
all  the  states. 

In  the  debates  in  the  lobby,  in  which  Hon.  J.  A.  M'Cler- 
nand,  now  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  Hon.  Murray 
M'Connell,  and  Hon.  J.  A.  M'Dougall,  now  of  California,  took 
prominent  parts,  upon  the  Judiciary  question,  at  that  session 
of  1840-41,  the  action  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  this  case  was 
freely  commented  upon.  It  is  true  that  early  that  winter  the 
court  delivered  its  opinion  reversing  the  decision  of  the  court 
below,  yet  its  intended  decision  otherwise  when  it  was  re 
quired  as  a  party  measure  was  employed  with  great  effect. 
It  gave  strength  to  the  advocates  of  a  reorganization  of  the 
judiciary.  The  political  character  of  the  court,  and  the  par 
tisan  nature  of  their  official  acts  as  judges  and  as  members  of 
the  Council  of  Revision,  were  held  up  in  the  strongest  light,  not 
only  in  the  Legislature,  but  in  the  more  animated  debates  in 
the  lobby.  The  proposed  plan  of  reorganizing  the  courts  was 
as  follows : 

To  abolish  the  existing  circuit  courts,  and  to  increase  the 
number  of  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  nine,  and  requir 
ing  those  judges  to  do  circuit  duty,  the  whole  court  sitting  in 
bane  at  stated  periods  to  hear  appeals,  etc. 

This  plan  was  perfectly  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution 
of  the  state.  The  circuit  courts  had  been  created  by  the  Leg 
islature,  and  were  wholly  within  its  control.  The  plan  pro 
posed  in  no  way  interfered  with  the  constitutional  rights  of 
the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court ;  they  continued  undisturbed 
in  the  possession  of  their  offices  and  their  salaries.  Accord 
ingly,  Mr.  Snyder,  in  January,  introduced  a  bill  into  the  Senate 
to  reorganize  the  judiciary  of  the  state  upon  the  plan  stated 
above.  The  debate  in  the  Legislature  and  in  the  lobby  was 
renewed  with  great  warmth,  and  finally  the  bill  passed  both 
houses.  On  the  7th  of  February  the  bill  was  returned  by  the 
Council  of  Revision  (consisting  of  the  judges  of  the  Supreme 
Court  and  the  governor)  with  their  objections.  The  objections 


48  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

were  on  the  ground  of  expediency.  The  governor  dissented 
from  his  associates  in  council,  but  was  overruled  by  the  ma 
jority.  The  bill  was,  however,  considered,  and  passed  both 
houses  by  the  requisite  majority. 

Under  this  act  the  state  was  divided  into  nine  circuits,  that 
being  the  number  of  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court.;  and  on  the 
15th  of  February,  1841,  the  Legislature  met  in  joint  conven 
tion  to  elect  the  five  additional  judges  provided  for  by  the  act. 
In  that  convention,  Sidney  Breese,  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  Thomas 
Ford,  S.  H.  Treat,  and  Walter  B.  Scates  were  chosen.  In  the 
allotment  of  circuits,  the  fifth,  being  the  Quincy  District,  was 
assigned  to  Judge  Douglas.  On  the  4th  of  March,  1834,  a 
poor  stranger,  without  friends,  books,  or  money,  he  obtained, 
what  was  supposed  to  be  a  favor,  from  the  four  judges  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  a  license  to  practice  law ;  and  in  less  than  seven 
years  from  the  date  of  that  license,  by  the  force  of  his  own  un 
aided  abilities,  he  had  so  won  the  confidence  and  respect  of  the 
people  that  he  was  chosen  a  member  of  that  same  court. 

It  was  at  this  session  of  the  Legislature  that  the  Hon.  LYMAN 
TKUMBTJLL,  now  of  the  United  States  Senate,  introduced  his 
resolution  advising  the  practical  repudiation  of  a  portion  of 
the  state  debt  by  refusing  to  pay  interest  on  certain  bonds  of 
the  state  for  which  the  state  had  received  no  equivalent.  This 
measure  was  advocated  by  Trumbull  in  the  House,  and  was 
discussed  in  the  lobby,  and  in  a  powerful  speech  in  the  latter 
Mr.  Douglas  administered  a  crushing  rebuke  to  the  arrant 
demagoguism  evinced  by  the  mover  of  the  resolution.  The 
proposition  was  made  so  odious  that  it  was  soon  abandoned 
as  an  unsafe  hobby  even  for  a  demagogue.  The  state,  through 
inability,  for  a  number  of  years  afterward  omitted  the  payment 
of  interest,  but  never  at  any  time  repudiated  the  debt ;  and 
subsequently,  when  the  state  was  in  a  condition  to  pay,  the  ac 
crued  interest  was  funded,  and  stock  for  its  amount  was  issued 
bearing  interest.  All  honor  to  the  gallant  men  who  met  the 
insidious  and  perfidious  proposition  to  repudiate  at  the  thresh 
old,  and  strangled  it  even  in  the  hands  of  its  author. 

The  circuit  to  which  Judge  Douglas  was  assigned  was  the 
most  perplexing  and  annoying.  It  included  the  Mormon  settle 
ments,  and  there  was  a  constant  conflict  between  the  "  Saints" 
and  the  "  Gentiles."  Some  of  the  most  exciting  scenes  of  his 
life  were  spent  in  the  judicial  and  other  proceedings  growing 


LEGISLATOR,  LAWYER,  POLITICIAN,  AKD   JUDGE.  49 

out  of  the  turbulence  of  the  people  connected  with  the  Mor 
mon  leaders.  Joe  Smith  and  his  people  were  accused  of  all 
the  crimes  in  the  calendar,  particularly  with  all  the  horse-steal 
ing  committed  in  that  section.  Whether  true  or  false,  it  was 
almost  impossible  to  prove  by  sufficient  legal  testimony  the 
guilt  of  the  parties  accused.  The  consequence  was  that  an  em 
bittered  state  of  feeling  gradually  grew  up  between  the  Mor 
mons  and  the  rest  of  the  people,  and  these  exasperated  feel 
ings  often  led  to  deeds  of  violence.  Joe  Smith  was  the  head 
of  the  Mormon  Church  and  people.  The  people  held  the  court 
responsible  if  the  prisoners  escaped  conviction,  and  the  Mor 
mons  denounced  the  court  for  inclining  always  to  the  oppress 
ors  of  that  chosen  race. 

One  trying  scene  in  his  judicial  career  will  suffice  to  illus 
trate  the  difficulties  attending  the  administration  of  justice  in 
cases  where  the  Mormons  were  parties,  and  at  the  same  time 
serve  as  an  illustration  of  the  boldness  and  Jackson-like  de 
termination  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas.  Joe  Smith  had  been  in 
dicted  for  some  offense,  and  was  put  upon  his  trial  before 
Judge  Douglas.  While  the  case  was  proceeding,  the  people, 
who  had  collected  from  all  parts  of  the  country  to  see  the 
prisoner,  and,  as  they  hoped,  to  rejoice  at  his  conviction,  be 
came  excited  by  the  thousand  stories  told  of  Mormon  out 
rages.  Smith  was  represented  to  be,  as  he  was  in  fact,  the 
moving  spirit  of  the  sect,  and  it  was  supposed  that  if  he  were 
put  out  of  the  way,  the  entire  settlements,  being  deprived  of 
their  leader,  would  break  tip  and  leave  the  country.  More 
over,  Smith  was  by  the  populace  held  individually  responsible 
for  all  the  crimes  charged  against  his  people.  On  this  occa 
sion  the  multitude  had  become  greatly  excited,  and  it  being 
whispered  that  the  evidence  would  hardly  justify  a  conviction, 
it  was  proposed  by  some  one  to  enter  the  court-house,  seize 
the  prisoner,  and  hang  him.  A  gallows  was  at  once  con 
structed  and  erected  in  the  court-house  yard,  and  a  body  of 
four  hundred  men  entered  the  court-house  for  the  purpose  of 
taking  Smith  and  hanging  him.  As  the  mob  boisterously  and 
tumultuously  entered  and  crowded  toward  the  bench,  near 
which  Smith  sat,  the  judge  directed  the  sheriff  to  clear  the 
court-room,  as  these  men  interrupted  the  proceedings.  The 
sheriff,  a  small,  weak  man,  requested  "  the  gentlemen"  to  keep 
order  and  to  retire,  and  attempted  to  enforce  the  request,  but 

C 


50  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN    A.  DOUGLAS. 

very  soon  informed  the  court  that  he  could  not  do  it.  Gain 
ing  confidence  by  the  confession  of  powerlessness  on  the  part 
of  the  sheriff,  and  maddened  still  more  by  the  sight  of  the  pris 
oner,  several  of  them  climbed  over  the  bar,  and  rushed  toward 
Smith.  The  judge  at  once  rose  in  his  place,  and,  addressing 
by  name  a  large-built  man,  who  stood  six  and  a  half  feet  high, 
a  Kentuckian  by  birth,  and  of  great  muscular  strength,  said, 
"  I  appoint  you  sheriff  of  this  court.  Select  your  own  depu 
ties,  and  as  many  of  them  as  you  require.  Clear  this  court 
house  ;  the  law  demands  it,  the  country  demands  it,  and  I,  as 
judge  of  this  court,  command  you  to  do  your  duty  as  a  citi 
zen  bound  to  preserve  the  peace  and  enforce  the  laws."  The 
newly  and  rather  suddenly  appointed  sheriff  "  obeyed  orders." 
He  ordered  the  crowd  to  leave,  the  judge  encouraging  him  all 
the  while.  The  first,  second,  and  the  third  who  refused  to 
quit  the  court-room  were  instantly  knocked  down  by  the  pow 
erful  arm  of  the  Kentuckian.  Others  were  thrown  out  of  the 
windows  by  him  and  his  deputies,  and  the  great  crowd,  baffled 
and  discouraged  by  the  repulse  of  their  leaders,  crowded  out 
of  the  doors.  In  less  than  twenty  minutes  from  the  first  en 
trance  of  the  mob  the  court-room  was  cleared.  A  murder  had 
been  prevented.  The  administration  of  law  had  been  protect 
ed  from  a  violent  invasion.  The  prisoner's  right  to  a  fair  trial 
by  the  courts  of  his  country  had  been  vindicated,  and  all  this 
by  the  prompt  action  of  the  judge.  A  feature  in  the  case  that 
renders  it  more  striking  is,  that  the  judge  had  no  power  to 
appoint  a  sheriff,  the  duly  appointed  sheriff  of  the  county  being 
present ;  and  in  his  extempore  appointment  he  had  exceeded 
his  authority,  or,  more  properly  speaking,  had  assumed  an  au 
thority  that  did  not  belong  to  him.  This  he  well  knew.  But 
the  emergency  was  a  great  one.  A  moment's  delay  wrould 
have  been  fatal ;  the  least  sign  of  hesitation  would  have  sealed 
the  prisoner's  fate ;  in  five  minutes  he  would  have  been  hang 
ed,  if,  indeed,  he  was  not  killed  before  taken  out  of  the  build 
ing.  It  was  no  time  for  debate  as  to  the  limits  of  his  power. 
Like  Jackson  at  New  Orleans,  he  assumed  the  responsibility 
of  doing  what  necessity  required.  He  did  the  only  thing  that 
was  possible  to  prevent  a  murder  in  the  precincts  of  the  court, 
and  a  gross  violation  of  the  laws. 

The  gratitude  of  Smith  was  unbounded.    On  many  previous 
occasions  he  and  his  followers  had  denounced  Judge  Douglas 


LEGISLATOR,  LAWYER   POLITICIAN,  AND   JUDGE.  51 

for  his  frequent  decisions  adverse  to  their  interests  in  cases 
where  they  were  parties,  but  from  that  time  out  he  always 
treated  Douglas  with  respect.  He  had  learned  that  the  best 
judge  was  not  the  man  who  decided  in  his  favor,  but  the  man 
who  decided  as  justice  demanded,  and  who,  to  protect  the  pris 
oner  and  preserve  the  laws  from  violence,  had  driven  back  a 
murderous  mob  !  The  respect  of  the  Mormons,  won  by  this 
event,  was  of  infinite  service  to  himself  and  others  on  a  very 
memorable  occasion.  We  give  the  story  as  we  find  it,  having 
no  doubt  of  its  general  accuracy : 

"In  the  year  1846,  the  excitement  against  the  Mormons  at 
Nauvoo  reached  its  height.  The  people  of  the  surrounding 
country  determined  to  drive  them  away.  The  Saints  determ 
ined  to  defend  themselves.  A  civil  war  seemed  imminent. 
Governor  Ford  dispatched  a  regiment  to  put  dowTn  botfi  bel 
ligerents.  This  regiment,  consisting  of  450  men,  was  under 
the  command  of  Colonel  John  J.  Hardin,  the  old  political  op 
ponent,  but  warm  personal  friend  of  Mr.  Douglas,  who  held  the 
post  of  major. 

"  As  the  little  body  of  troops  approached  Nauvoo,  they  saw 
the  Mormons,  4000  strong,  drawn  up  to  oppose  their  advance. 
Every  man  of  them  was  known  to  be  armed  with  a  '  seven- 
shooter'  and  a  brace  of  Colt's  '  revolvers' — twenty-one  shots 
to  a  man  besides  a  bowie-knife. 

"  Hardin  halted  his  troops  just  out  of  rifle  range,  and  address 
ed  them : 

"  i  There  are  the  Mormons,  ten  to  one  against  us.  I  intend 
to  attack  them.  If  there  is  a  coward  here  who  wishes  to  go 
home,  he  may  do  so  now.  Let  any  man  who  wishes  to  go 
step  to  the  front.' 

"  Not  a  man  came  forward. 

"  'There  were,  I  dare  say,'  says  Mr.  Douglas,  4just  451  of  us, 
including  our  colonel,  who  would  have  been  glad  to  have  re 
tired  ;  but  not  one  of  us  had  the  courage  to  own  that  he  was 
a  coward.' 

"  '  Major  Douglas,'  said  the  colonel, '  will  take  100  men,  will, 
proceed  to  Nauvoo,  arrest  the  twelve  apostles,  and  bring  them 
here !' 

" '  Colonel  Hardin,'  asked  the  major,  quietly,  so  that  no  one 
else  heard, c  is  this  a  peremptory  order  ?' 

"'It  is.' 


52  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

" '  Then  I  shall  make  an  attempt  to  execute  it.  But  I  give 
you  warning  that  not  a  man  of  us  will  ever  return.' 

" 4  The  apostles  must  be  taken,  Major  Douglas,'  replied  the 
colonel. 

"  '  Very  well,  colonel.  If  you  will  send  me  alone  you  will  be 
much  more  likely  to  get  them.' 

"  '  But  you  will  lose  your  life.' 

"'I  will  take  the  responsibility.  If  you  send  me  alone,  I 
will  pledge  myself  to  reach  the  city.  As  to  bringing  in  the 
twelve,  or  getting  back  myself,  that  is  quite  another  question. 
I  will  try.' 

"'Major  Douglas,'  said  the  colonel,  after  reflecting  a  few 
moments, '  will  proceed  to.  Nauvoo,  taking  such  escort  as  he 
sees  fit.' 

"  The  order  was  hardly  given  when  the  little  major — for  he 
was  not  then  a  '  Little  Giant' — dashed  off  at  full  speed  and 
alone.  As  he  approached  the  Mormon  legions,  General  Wells 
came  forward  to  meet  him,  and,  after  a  brief  conversation,  es 
corted  him  through  the  hollow  square  of  troops  into  the  city. 
He  was  not  long  in  finding  Brigham  and  the  twelve.  All  of 
them  were  old  acquaintances  of  his.  Most  of  them  had,  in 
fact,  been  before  him  for  trial,  as  judge,  upon  some  charge  or 
other. 

"  The  judge  is  famous  for  his  taking  manners,  and  in  a  very 
brief  time  he  succeeded  in  inducing  Brigham  and  his  associates 
to  accompany  him.  They  all  packed  themselves  into  the 
'  apostolic  coach,'  drawn  by  eight  horses,  and  presented  them 
selves  in  the  camp. 

"  The  fighting  was  postponed,  and  negotiations  for  the  re 
moval  of  the  Mormons  were  entered  upon,  Judge  Douglas 
being  chief  negotiator  on  one  side.  Brigham  himself  said  but 
little ;  and,  at  length,  said  he  would  go  out  for  a  while,  direct- 
yig  his  associates  to  settle  the  terms.  These  were  soon  in 
formally  agreed  to  by  the  twelve,  and  they  were  committed 
to  paper. 

"  Brigham  returned,  and  asked  how  matters  had  succeeded. 
fie  was  told  that  every  thing  had  been  settled. 

"  'Let  me  look  at  the  terms,'  said  Brigham,  quietly. 

"  He  read  them  over  hastily. 

"  '  I'll  never  agree  to  them — never !'  he  exclaimed. 

"  The  vote  was  formally  put,  and  the  whole  twelve,  without 


LEGISLATOR,  LAWYEE,  POLITICIAN,  AND   JUDGE.  53 

a  dissenting  voice,  declared  against  them,  though  they  had  as 
unanimously  accepted  them  not  five  minutes  before. 

"  The  negotiations  were  then  renewed  between  Brigham  and 
Douglas.  New  terms  were  settled ;  and,  when  the  vote  was 
taken,  the  twelve  agreed  to  them  at  once.  The  treaty  was 
duly  signed,  and  the  Mormons  prepared  to  leave  the  state." 

The  election  to  a  seat  on  the  bench  of  the  Supreme  Court 
was  as  unexpected  as  it  was  undesired  by  Mr.  Douglas.  He 
had  already  attained  a  heavy  practice,  particularly  in  the  larger 
cases.  He  was  located  at  the  seat  of  government,  and  was 
holding  an  office  of  honor,  whose  duties  were  comparatively 
light,  and  which  afforded  him  the  use  of  the  public  library. 
As  secretary  of  state  he  could  practice  law;  as  judge  he  would 
be  compelled  to  perform  a  great  amount  of  labor  at  a  very 
disproportioned  salary.  But  friends  asked  the  sacrifice,  press 
ed  it,  urged  it,  and  he  consented.  He  did  not  take  his  seat 
until  the  last  day  of  that  term ;  and,  as  soon  as  the  court  ad 
journed,  removed  his  residence  to  the  beautiful  city  of  Quincy, 
on  the  Mississippi,  and  commenced  his  circuit  duties.  He  had, 
independent  of  his  Mormon  constituents,  a  large  district ;  his 
duties  on  the  circuit,  and  at  the  semi-annual  meeting  of  the 
court  at  Springfield,  occupied  nearly  all  his  time.  He  was 
holding  court  at  least  ten  months  in  each  year,  and  the  jour- 
neyings  from  county  to  county  were  by  no  means  trips  of 
pleasure.  Some  of  the  most  important  cases  were  brought 
before  him.  We  have  heard  it  stated  that  there  was  but  one 
case  of  the  many  decided  by  him  that  was  ever  reversed,  and 
that  was  one  involving  some  question  of  practice.  He  was,  as 
judge  and  as  a  member  of  the  Council  of  Revision,  determined 
ly  hostile  to  all  the  attempts  by  legislation  to  prevent  the  col 
lection  of  honest  debts.  In  those  days,  when  money  was  scarce 
and  credit  destroyed,  there  were  demagogues  who,  not  bold 
enough  to  imitate  Trumbull  in  his  proposition  for  direct  repu 
diation,  still  sought,  like  him,  popularity  with  the  rabble  by 
propositions  for  stay  laws  and  assessment  laws.  One  of  these 
laws  provided  that,  before  a  man's  property  should  be  sold  for 
debt,  it  should  be  appraised  by  a  certain  number  of  his  neigh 
bors,  and  then  it  could  not  be  sold  on  execution  for  less  than 
that  appraised  value. 

Against  these  and  all  similar  acts  of  legislation  Judge  Doug 
las  remonstrated  in  the  Council  of  Revision ;  and  whenever  they 
came  before  him  judicially,  whenever  he  could  do  so  conscien- 


54  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

tiously,  he  decided  them  to  be  unconstitutional,  as  violative 
of  that  great  principle  that  the  Legislature  should  not  pass  laws 
impairing  the  validity  of  contracts  by  ex  post  facto  regulations. 
These  and  like  decisions,  often  pronounced  with  striking  em 
phasis  and  warmth,  lost  him  the  friendship  and  support  of  the 
few,  but  endeared  him  to  the  many,  and  eventually  gained  for 
him  that  warm  confidence  of  the  public  which  is  sure  to  follow 
an  upright  adherence  to  the  right. 

The  extent  of  his  popularity  at  this  time  may  be  judged  by 
an  event  that  took  place  at  the  session  of  the  Legislature  in 
December,  1842.  He  had  then  been  a  judge  nearly  two  years, 
and  had  been  absent  from  the  seat  of  government,  and  from 
the  political  caucusing  and  managing  that  was  ever  going  on 
at  that  place.  When  the  Legislature  met  a  United  States  sen 
ator  was  to  be  chosen.  He  was  then  twenty-nine  years  of  age 
—would  not  be  thirty  until  April,  1843.  The  senator  to  be 
chosen  was  to  be  elected  for  six  years  from  March  3,  1843. 
There  was  a  demand  from  various  parts  that  he  should  be  se 
lected.  He  was  a  friend  and  a  supporter  of  the  Hon.  R.  M. 
Young,  then  holding  the  place.  There  were  several  compet 
itors  for  the  place,  and  their  friends  urged  Douglas's  non-eli 
gibility.  The  Constitution  required  senators  to  be  thirty  years 
of  age ;  he  would  not  be  thirty  at  the  time  of  his  election.  His 
admirers,  in  his  absence,  urged  in  reply  that  he  need  not,  even 
if  there  was  a  called  session,  take  his  seat  until  after  he  had 
reached  the  required  age.  But  such  questions  were  not,  in 
those  days,  as  familiarly  understood  as  at  the  present,  and  his 
nonage  was  used  with  great  effect  against  him. 

The  Democratic  members  of  the  Legislature  met  in  caucus 
on  the  evening  of  Friday,  December  16,  1842,  to  nominate  a 
candidate  for  IJnited  States  senator.  The  excitement  was  high, 
and  was  shared  in  by  the  hundreds  of  leading  men  of  the  state 
not  members  of  the  Legislature,  but  present  at  Springfield. 
There  were  nineteen  ballots  before  a  nomination  was  made ; 
and  as  the  result  of  each  was  announced  to  the  multitude  out 
side,  the  cheering  for  the  candidates  by  their  respective  friends 
added  greatly  to  the  excitement.  The  following  was  the  re 
sult  of  the  first  and  last  ballots : 

1st.  19th. 

E.  M.  Young 38 1 

Sidney  Breese 28  56 

S.A.Douglas 29  51 

J.  A.  M 'demand 18  3 


.v         LEGISLATOR,  LAWYER,  POLITICIAN,  AND   JUDGE.  55 

The  Hon.  Sidney  Breese,  having  on  the  nineteenth  ballot  ob 
tained  a  majority  of  one,  was  declared  nominated,  and  next 
day  was  elected  by  the  Legislature. 

In  December,  1841,  a  Democratic  state  convention  had  as 
sembled  to  nominate  candidates  for  state  officers,  and  had  nom 
inated  the  Hon.  A.  "VV.  Snyder  for  governor,  and  John  Moore 
for  lieutenant  governor.  During  the  canvass  Mr.  SNYDER  died, 
and  the  Hon.  THOMAS  FORD,  one  of  the  judges  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  was  placed  on  the  ticket  in  his  place.  Messrs.  Ford 
and  Moore  were  elected,  and  entered  upon  the  duties  of  their 
offices  in  January,  1843. 

In  the  spring  of  1843  Judge  Douglas's  health  became  very 
much  impaired,  and  he  contemplated  resigning  his  office  and 
spending  the  summer  in  the  Indian  country — that  country 
with  which,  under  the  title  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  his  name 
has  subsequently  become  so  familiar !  But  the  exigencies  of 
the  Democratic  party  required  his  services  again.  The  state 
had  been  redistricted  under  the  new  census,  the  number  of 
representatives  in  Congress  to  which  Illinois  was  entitled  had 
been  increased  to  seven,  and  the  district  in  which  he  resided 
was  one  in  which  the  Democrats  had  but  little  hope  of  success. 
Several  counties  had  nominated  him  for  the  office,  but,  in  con 
sequence  of  his  ill  health,  and  the  seeming  impossibility  on  his 
part  to  canvass  the  district,  he  had  declined  the  use  of  his 
name.  But  on  the  meeting  of  the  counties  he  was  nominated ; 
the  persons  voted  for,  besides  Mr.  Douglas,  on  the  first  ballot, 
were  William  A.  Richardson,  A.  W.  Cavarly,  Ex-governor  Car- 
lin,  and  Ex-senator  Young.  The  convention  met  at  Suggs- 
ville,  in  Pike  County.  Judge  Douglas  was  nominated  on  the 
second  ballot  by  a  most  decided  vote.  A  committee  was  ap 
pointed  to  wait  upon  him,  and  urge  his  acceptance,  as  the  only 
hope  of  carrying  the  district. 

He  was,  when  informed  of  his  nomination,  holding  court  at 
Knoxville ;  he  was  advised,  considering  the  doubtful  chances 
of  the  election,  to  retain  his  judicial  office,  and  resign  it  only 
in  the  event  of  his  election.  He  rejected  this  advice,  and, 
having  accepted  the  nomination,  as  soon  as  the  term  was  closed 
he  resigned  his  office  as  judge. 

The  Hon.  O.  H.  BROWNING,  of  Quincy,  one  of  the  ablest  law 
yers  in  that  district,  was  the  opposing  candidate.  Mr.  Brown 
ing  was  attending  court  at  the  time,  and,  as  soon  as  the  judge 


56  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

resigned,  they  made  out  a  list  of  appointments  for  joint  dis 
cussion,  commencing  at  Charleston  (now  Brimfield),in  Peoria 
County,  on  June  23d.  The  district  was  a  large  one.  It  in 
cluded  the  following  named  counties,  with  those  which  have 
since  been  formed  out  of  them,  viz.,  Jersey,  Green,  Macoupin, 
Calhoun,  Pike,  Brown,  Schuyler,  Adams,  Marquette,  Fulton, 
and  Peoria.  The  two  candidates  from  that  day  until  the  day 
before  election  traversed  the  district  together.  The  election 
took  place  in  August,  and  the  contest  was  an  excited  and  ani 
mated  one,  and  the  result  was  that  Mr.  Douglas  was  elected 
by  a  majority  of  445  !  So  great  had  been  the  exertions  and 
labors  of  the  candidates,  that  on  election-day  both  were  pros 
trated  with  illness  from  which  neither  recovered  for  nearly 
two  months. 

As  soon  as  his  health  permitted,  some  time  in  November  of 
the  same  year,  he  left  Quincy  on  his  way  to  Washington.  Ten 
years  had  just  elapsed  since  he  had  entered  the  state  a  poor, 
friendless,  and  unknown  youth.  During  those  ten  years  what 
an  eventful  life  had  been  his.  In  November,  1833,  he  had  gone 
from  one  town  to  another  on  foot,  seeking  employment  that 
would  yield  him  enough  to  pay  for  his  board  and  washing. 
In  November,  1843,  he  bore  upon  his  person  his  commission 
as  a  member  of  Congress !  In  the  winter  of  '33-4  he  had 
accepted,  as  a  gracious  deed  of  kindness,  the  place  of  teacher 
to  a  school  of  forty  pupils,  at  three  dollars  per  quarter  each ; 
now  he  was  the  duly  commissioned  and  honored  representa 
tive  in  the  councils  of  his  country  of  a  hundred  thousand  of 
his  fellow-citizens.  In  1834  he  had  obtained  from  the  Supreme 
Court,  with  their  sneer  upon  his  pretensions,  a  license  to  prac 
tice  law ;  within  a  few  months  he  had  resigned  his  seat  as  a 
colleague  of  those  same  judges  to  accept  of  a  higher  and  more 
important  trust  confided  to  him  by  the  people  of  Illinois. 
During  those  ten  years,  how  strong  must  have  been  the  will, 
and  persevering  the  energy,  that  enabled  him  successfully  to 
encounter  all  the  opposition  and  overcome  all  the  obstacles 
which  met  him  at  every  path.  From  the  day  of  his  memora 
ble  speech  in  the  court-house  at  Jacksonville  he  had  been  a 
marked  man  by  friend  and  foe ;  that  speech  drew  upon  him 
the  attention  of  all  envious  rivals  in  his  own  party,  and  aspiring 
men  in  the  Opposition.  It  was  the  stepping-stone  to  an  un 
bounded  and  unequaled  popularity  in  his  own  party,  and  drew 


LEGISLATOK,  LAWYEK,  POLITICIAN,  AND   JUDGE.  57 

upon  him  the  first  shaft  of  the  Opposition.  When  Mr.  Lam- 
born  rose  to  address  that  meeting  that  day,  he  had  not  the 
slightest  doubt  of  "killing  Douglas"  before  he  concluded. 
But  Douglas  was  not  "  killed ;"  the  very  means  employed  to 
destroy  him  he  used  with  unequaled  power  in  strengthening 
and  elevating  himself.  The  work  attempted  by  Lanaborn  on 
that  occasion  wras  taken  up  by  many  during  those  first  ten 
years  of  Douglas  in  Illinois,  but  the  men  who  engaged  in  it 
failed,  as  have  all  other  men  who  attempted  the  task.  Where 
are  the  men  who  sought  his  political  destruction  in  those 
years  ?  They  have  been  forgotten,  or,  being  remembered,  are 
remembered  only  because  they  encountered  Douglas  and  were 
vanquished  by  him.  It  is  unnecessary  to  mention  names ;  it 
is  unnecessary  to  ask  what  became  of  the  men  who,  during 
those  years,  sought  to  destroy  him  in  the  estimation  of  the 
people ;  the  only  answer  that  need  be  given  to  such  a  ques 
tion  is  to  point  to  the  tombstones  that  stand  conspicuously 
upon  every  political  battle-field  of  those  ten  eventful  years. 

Mr.  Douglas,  after  his  ten  years'  absence,  visited,  on  his  way 
to  Congress,  his  friends  at  Cleveland  and  his  relatives  at  Can- 
andaigua.  He  had  redeemed  his  promise — that  he  would  carve 
out  his  own  successful  career.  Unaided  and  alone  he  had  gone 
forth;  he  now  returned  as  the  chosen  representative  of  the 
generous  people  with  whom  he  had  taken  up  his  residence. 
Since  he  had  last  seen  his  relatives,  he  had,  from  the  condition 
of  a  penniless,  homeless  youth,  been  admitted  to  the  bar,  chosen 
state's  attorney,  register  of  the  land  office,  secretary  of  state, 
judge  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  now  a  member  of  Congress. 
Had  he  been  idle  ?  had  he  wasted  his  talents  ?  had  he  misap 
plied  his  time  ?  Was  there  one  of  the  hundreds  who,  sur 
rounded  with  all  the  aids  of  wealth  and  family  influence,  had 
started  in  life  with  him,  could  show  a  more  brilliant  or  success 
ful  career,  or  more  honorable  proofs  often  years'  earnest  labor? 

Since  December,  1843,  Mr.  Douglas  has  been  a  representa 
tive  of  Illinois  in  one  or  other  house  of  Congress.  He  took 
his  seat  in  December,  1843,  and  again  in  December,  1845,  as 
a  member  of  the  House.  In  August,  1846,  he  was  again  elect 
ed  to  the  House ;  but  at  the  session  of  the  Legislature  com 
mencing  December,  1846,  he  was  elected  to  the  United  States 
Senate.  In  January,  1853,  he  was  again  elected  to  the  Senate, 

C  2 


58  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

and  in  January,  1859 — after  the  memorable  contest  of  1858 — 
he  was  a  third  time  elected  for  a  term  of  six  years.  After  the 
first  convention  which  nominated  him  for  Congress,  there  was 
no  opposition  to  his  nomination,  the  party  taking  him  up  as 
their  candidate  by  universal  consent.  So  with  his  election  to 
the  United  States  Senate.  After  the  caucus  had  nominated 
him  in  1847,  he  was  elected  as  a  matter  of  course;  and  in 
1853  and  in  1859  no  opposition  in  his  own  party  was  ever 
urged  against  his  re-election. 

Perhaps  no  man,  not  excepting  even  the  great  Clay,  Web 
ster,  and  Benton,  has  taken  a  more  active  part  in  the  debates 
of  Congress  during  the  time  that  he  has  been  a  member,  than 
Mr.  Douglas.  No  branch  of  the  public  business  has  occupied 
his  whole  time.  He  has  been  an  untiring  business  man  upon 
all  the  great  subjects  that  have  been  before  Congress  since 
1843.  Upon  all  these  questions  he  has  entered  largely  into 
the  debates,  and  the  attentive  reader  of  the  discussions  in  Con 
gress  will  find  that  Mr.  Douglas's  speeches  are  all  devoted  to 
the  accomplishment  of  practical  ends,  to  be  attained  by  follow 
ing  fixed  principles ;  and  that  in  no  instance  has  he  departed 
from  this  policy,  even  when  by  so  doing  he  could  avoid  per 
sonal  hostility  or  obtain  personal  favor.  His  intrepidity  as  a 
statesman  has  marked  every  step  of  his  public  career,  and  the 
stronger  and  more  violent  the  storm  directed  against  him,  the 
stronger  and  more  unyielding  has  been  his  determination  to 
work  out  the  great  end  he  had  in  view. 

Another  distinguishing  mark  of  Mr.  Douglas's  career  has 
been  that  he  has  NEVER  FAILED  in  any  proposition  which  he 
has  undertaken  seriously  to.  have  accomplished.  He  has  intro 
duced  many  measures  that  he  has  never  pushed  to  a  success 
ful  issue ;  but  when  the  right  time  arrives  for  any  measure 
that  he  deems  appropriate  and  necessary,  he  never  has  failed 
to  give  to  it  all  his  energies,  and  in  such  case  has  never  failed 
in  seeing  it  successful  over  all  opposition. 

In  reviewing  the  public  history  of  a  man  who,  like  Mr. 
Douglas,  has  taken  such  an  important  part  in  the  legislation 
of  nearly  twenty  years,  covering  a  period  of  agitation  and  ex 
citement  never  exceeded  in  the  previous  history  of  the  coun 
try,  it  is  necessary,  in  a  work  like  this,  to  condense  narratives, 
when  the  whole  story  should  be  told,  and  to  give  the  substance 
only  of  speeches,  when  the  entire  speeches  ought  to  be  read. 


MK.  DOUGLAS    AND    GENERAL   JACKSON.  59 

Much  that  is  valuable  in  the  history  of  the  country,  and  much 
that  would  be  useful  in  forming  a  true  and  just  estimate  of 
Mr.  Douglas's  great  abilities  as  a  jurist,  a  statesman,  and  an 
orator,  is  reluctantly  yet  necessarily  omitted  in  this  volume. 
In  preparing  the  sketch  of  his  services  in  Congress,  it  has  been 
found  more  convenient,  and  possibly  more  advantageous  to 
the  reader,  to  arrange  them  under  subjects,  without  any  strict 
reference  to  chronological  order ;  and  the  reader  must  remem 
ber  that  the  subjects  treated  of  in  the  following  pages  are  not 
all,  but  only  a  few  of  the  leading  measures  in  which  he  has 
taken  an  active  part. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

.        ME.  DOUGLAS   AND    GENERAL   JACKSON. 

IT  has  already  been  stated  that  Mr.  Douglas's  first  speech  of  V 
a  political  character  in  Illinois,  and  his  first  public  political  tri 
umph,  was  at  a  public  meeting  at  Jacksonville,  in  the  spring 
of  1834,  where  he  encountered  the  ablest  of  General  Jackson's 
opponents,  and  in  a  county  where  the  influence  of  the  bank 
had  paralyzed  the  Democracy,  had  silenced  the  old  hero's  cham 
pions,  and  was  carrying  unopposed  all  political  power  to  the 
side  of  the  monopoly.  Young,  inexperienced,  unknown  to  the 
people,  he  vindicated  the  policy  of  the  old  veteran,  and  turned 
the  tide  of  popular  opinion  in  his  favor.  That  was  not  the 
only  speech,  nor  the  only  time  that  he  encountered  the  gallant 
and  eloquent  orators  of  the  Whig  party  in  the  defense  of  Gen 
eral  Jackson.  On  the  circuit  while  prosecuting  attorney,  on 
the  stump  as  candidate  for  the  Legislature,  in  the  Legislature 
as  a  member,  before  the  people  as  a  candidate  for  Congress,  on 
the  stump  as  a  Democratic  orator,  every  where,  on  all  occa 
sions,  from  1834  until  the  expiration  of  General  Jackson's  term 
of  office  in  1837,  Mr.  Douglas  was  selected  by  his  political 
friends,  and  recognized  by  his  opponents,  as  the  especial  cham 
pion  of  the  administration,  and  of  the  personal  and  political 
character  of  General  Andrew  Jackson.  It  has  also  been  stated 
that  in  boyhood,  when  serving  as  an  apprentice  in  Vermont, 
he  was  found  in  the  workshop,  and  in  all  congregations  of 
youths  of  his  own  age,  and  even  of  a  larger  growth,  the  de- 


60  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

fender  of  Jackson.  His  exploits  in  tearing  down  the  infamous 
coffin  band-bills  are  still  remembered*  Afterward,  while  at 
Canandaigua,  he  was  noted  for  the  fervor  with  wrhich  he  es 
poused  the  cause  of  Jackson,  and  during  the  canvass  of  1832 
for  the  zeal  displayed  in  behalf  of  Jackson  and  Marcy. 

Nor  was  his  advocacy  of  the  principles  of  General  Jackson 
terminated  by  the  retirement  of  the  old  hero  from  the  presi 
dency.  In  Mr.  Van  Buren's  administration,  and  in  the  trials 
and  vicissitudes  that  attended  its  earlier  days  in  financial  mat 
ters,  the  old  hero's  cause  was  tried  over  and  over  again.  Dur 
ing  1837,  8,  and  9,  Mr.  Douglas  was  indefatigable  on  the  stump 
and  in  convention  in  the  defense  of  the  financial  policy  adopt 
ed  by  the  party.  In  these  matters  he  occupied  the  very  first 
position  as  an  orator  before  the  people  of  his  state. 

In  December,  1843,  he  took  his  seat  in  Congress.  For  sev 
eral  years  preceding  there  had  been  a  struggle  over  a  bill  pro 
posing  to  refund  to  General  Jackson  the  fine  of  $1000  imposed 
upon  him  by  Judge  Hall,  at  New  Orleans,  during  the  defense 
of  that  city.  Some  of  the  best  minds  in  Congress  had  consid 
ered  the  question,  and  it  had  been,  as  was  thought,  thoroughly 
discussed.  The  bill  had  never  become  a  law.  Early  in  the 
session  of  1843-4  a  bill  was  introduced,  and  the  subject  was 
again  debated.  General  Jackson  was  extolled  on  ah1  sides ; 
most  of  the  friends  of  the  bill  supported  it  as  a  measure  of 
gratitude — a  boon  due  by  a  grateful  country  to  her  patriotic 
and  successful  defender.  On  this  ground  it  was  mainly  sup 
ported  by  its  friends.  On  the  7th  of  January,  1844,  Mr.  Doug 
las  obtained  the  floor.  He  was  then  unknown  to  Congress. 
His  was  a  new  face,  and  his  was  a  strange  voice  in  those  halls. 
He  did  not  follow  the  beaten  path  in  his  advocacy  of  the  bill. 
He  at  once  took  high  and  strong  ground  in  defense  of  General 
Jackson's  conduct.  He  denied  the  legality  of  Judge  Hall's 
judgment.  This  position  was  a  bold  one ;  the  speaker  attract 
ed  attention ;  and,  as  he  warmed  with  his  subject,  he  soon  ob 
tained  the  ear  of  the  House.  His  speech  was  a  success.  It 
established  his  character  as  a  lawyer  and  as  a  debater.  From 
that  time  to  the  present  day  he  has  never  been  compelled  to 
address  empty  benches,  or  an  impatient,  inattentive  audience. 
As  a  monument  to  indicate  his  starting-point  in  the  parlia 
mentary  history  of  the  country,  the  speech  is  here  inserted  in 
full. 


ME.  DOUGLAS   AND   GENEEAL  JACKSON.  61 

Mr.  Douglas  said : 

When  this  bill  was  introduced  by  the  learned  gentleman  from  Pennsylva 
nia  (Mr.  C.  J.  Ingersoll),  I  entertained  the  hope  that  it  would  be  permitted 
to  pass  without  discussion  and  without  opposition.  But  the  character  of  the 
amendment  submitted  by  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  (Mr.  Stephens),  and 
the  debate  which  has  taken  place  upon  it  and  the  original  bill,  have  been  of 
such  a  nature  as  to  justify  and  require  the  friends  of  the  bill  to  go  into  a  dis 
cussion  of  the  whole  subject.  For  one,  I  am  not  disposed  to  shrink  from  the 
investigation  of  any  question  connected  with  this  subject,  nor  am  I  prepared 
to  acquiesce  silently  in  the  correctness  of  the  imputations  cast  upon  the  friends 
of  this  measure  by  gentlemen  in  the  Opposition.  They  have  been  pleased  to 
stigmatize  this  act  of  justice  to  the  distinguished  patriot  and  hero  as  a  hum 
bug — a  party  trick — a  political  movement,  intended  to  operate  upon  the  next 
Presidential  election.  These  imputations  are  as  unfounded  as  they  are  un- 
courteous,  and  I  hurl  them  back,  in  the  spirit  which  they  deserve,  upon  any 
man  who  is  capable  of  hai'boring,  much  less  expressing,  such  a  sentiment.  It 
ill  becomes  gentlemen  to  profess  to  be  the  real  friends  of  General  Jackson, 
and  the  exclusive  guardians  of  his  fame,  and  to  characterize  our  effort  as  sin 
ister  and  insincere,  while  in  the  same  breath  they  charge  him  with  violating 
the  Constitution  and  laws,  and  trampling  with  ruthless  violence  upon  the  ju 
diciary  of  the  country.  They  seem  to  act  upon  the  principle  that  the  most 
successful  mode  of  blackening  the  character  of  a  great  and  good  man  is  to 
profess  to  be  his  friends  while  making  unfounded  admissions  against  him, 
which,  if  true,  would  blast  his  reputution  forever.  If  these  are  to  be  taken 
as  the  kind  offering  of  friendship,  well  may  the  old  hero  pray  God  to  deliver 
him  from  the  hands  of  his  friends,  and  leave  him  to  take  care  of  his  enemies. 
I  insist  that  this  bill  has  been  brought  forward  and  supported  in  good  faith 
as  an  act  of  justice — strict,  rigid,  impartial  justice  to  the  American  people,  as 
well  as  their  bravest  defender.  The  country  has  an  interest  in  the  character 
of  her  public  men — their  unsullied  fame  gives  brilliancy  to  her  glory.  The 
history  of  General  Jackson  is  so  inseparably  connected  with  the  history  of  this 
country,  that  the  slightest  blot  upon  the  one  would  fix  an  indelible  stain  upon 
the  other.  Hence  the  duty,  the  high  and  patriotic  duty,  of  the  representa 
tives  of  the  people  to  efface  every  unjust  stigma  from  the  spotless  character 
of  that  truly  great  man,  and  transmit  his  name  to  posterity  adorned  with  all 
the  charms  which  the  light  of  truth  will  impart  to  it.  The  charge  of  exert 
ing  arbitrary  power  and  lawless  violence  over  courts,  and  Legislatures,  and 
civil  institutions,  in  derogation  of  the  Constitution  and  laws,  and  without  the 
sanction  of  rightful  authority,  have  been  so  often  made  and  reiterated  for  po 
litical  effect,  that  doubtless  many  candid  men  have  been  disposed  to  repose 
faith  in  their  correctness,  without  taking  the  pains  to  examine  carefully  the 
grounds  upon  which  they  rest. 

A  question  involving  the  right  of  the  country  to  use  the  means  necessary 
to  its  defense  from  foreign  invasion  in  times  of  imminent  and  impending  dan 
ger  is  too  vitally  important  to  be  yielded  without  an  inquiry  into  the  nature 
and  source  of  the  fatal  restriction  which  is  to  deprive  a  nation  of  the  power 
of  self-preservation.  The  proposition  contended  for  by  the  Opposition  is,  that 
the  general  in  command,  to  whose  protection  are  committed  the  country,  and 
the  lives,  property,  and  liberties  of  the  citizens  within  his  district,  may  not 
declare  martial  law  when  it  is  ascertained  that  its  exercise,  and  it  alone,  can 
save  all  from  total  destruction.  It  is  gravely  contended  that  in  such  an  aw 
ful  conjuncture  of  circumstances,  the  general  must  abandon  all  to  the  mercy 
of  the  enemy,  because  he  is  not  authorized  to  elevate  the  military  above  the 
civil  authorities,  and  that,  too,  when  it  is  certain  that  nothing  but  the  power 
of  the  military  law  can  save  the  civil  laws  and  the  Constitution  of  the  coun 
try  from  complete  annihilation.  If  these  are  not  the  positions  assumed  by 


62  '  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

gentlemen  in  so  many  words,  they  are  unquestionably  the  conclusion  to  which 
their  positions  necessarily  and  inevitably  conduct  us ;  for  no  man  pretends  to 
venture  the  assertion  that  the  city  of  New  Orleans  could,  by  any  human 
agency  or  effort,  have  been  saved  in  any  other  manner  than  the  declaration 
and  enforcement  of  martial  law.  For  one,  I  maintain  that,  in  the  exercise 
of  this  power,  General  Jackson  did  not  violate  the  Constitution,  nor  assume 
to  himself  any  authority  which  was  not  fully  authorized  and  legalized  by  his 
position,  his  duty,  and  the  unavoidable  necessity  of  the  case.  Sir,  I  admit 
that  the  declaration  of  martial  law  is  the  exercise  of  a  summary,  arbitrary, 
and  despotic  power,  like  that  of  a  judge  punishing  for  contempt,  without  evi 
dence,  or  trial,  or  jury,  and  without  any  other  law  than  his  own  will,  or  any 
limit  to  the  punishment  but  his  own  discretion.  The  power  in  the  two  cases 
is  analogous ;  it  rests  upon  the  same  principle,  and  is  derivable  from  the  same 
source — extreme  necessity.  The  gentleman  from  New  York  (Mr.  Barnard), 
in  his  legal  argument  to  establish  the  right  of  Judge  Hall  to  fine  General 
Jackson  one  thousand  dollars  for  contempt  of  court,  without  the  forms  of 
trial,  has  informed  us  that  this  power  is  not  conferred  by  the  common  law, 
nor  by  statute,  nor  by  any  express  provision,  but  is  inherent  in  every  judicial 
tribunal  and  every  legislative  body.  He  has  cited  the  decision  of  the* Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  in  support  of  this  doctrine,  and  I  do  not  deem  it 
necessary,  for  the  purposes  of  this  argument,  to  question  its  soundness.  The 
ground  upon  which  it  is  held  that  this  extraordinary  power  is  original,  and 
inherent  in  all  courts  and  deliberative  bodies,  is,  that  it  is  necessary  to  enable 
them  to  perform  the  duties  imposed  upon  them  by  the  Constitution  and  laws. 
It  is  said  that  the  divine  and  inalienable  right  of  self-defense  applies  to  courts 
and  Legislatures,  to  communities,  and  states,  and  nations,  as  well  as  individu 
als.  The  power,  it  is  said,  is  coextensive  with  the  duty,  and,  by  virtue  of  this 
principle,  each  of  these  bodies  is  authorized  not  only  to  use  the  means  essen 
tial  to  the  performance  of  the  duty,  but  also  to  exercise  the  powers  necessary 
to  remove  all  obstructions  to  the  discharge  of  that  duty.  Let  us  apply  these 
principles  to  the  proceedings  at  New  Orleans,  and  see  to  what  results  they 
will  bring  us. 

General  Jackson  was  the  legally  and  constitutionally  authorized  agent  of 
the  government  and  the  country  to  defend  that  city  and  its  adjacent  terri 
tory.  His  duty,  as  prescribed  by  the  Constitution  and  laws,  as  well  as  the 
instructions  of  the  War  Department,  was  to  defend  the  city  and  country  at 
every  hazard.  It  was  then  conceded,  and  is  now  conceded  on  all  sides,  that 
nothing  but  martial  law  would  enable  him  to  perform  that  duty.  If,  then, 
his  power  was  commensurate  with  his  duty,  and  (to  follow  the  language  of 
the  courts)  he  was  authorized  to  use  the  means  essential  to  its  performance, 
and  to  exercise  the  powers  necessary  to  remove  all  obstructions  necessary  to 
its  accomplishment — he  had  a  right  to  declare  martial  law,  when  it  was  as 
certained  and  acknowledged  that  nothing  but  martial  law  would  enable  him 
to  defend  the  city  and  the  country.  This  principle  has  been  recognized  and 
acted  upon  by  all  civilized  nations,  and  is  familiar  to  those  who  are  conver 
sant  with  military  history.  It  does  not  imply  the  right  to  suspend  the  laws 
and  civil  tribunals  at  pleasure.  The  right  grows  out  of  the  necessity  ;  and 
when  the  necessity  fails,  the  right  ceases.  It  may  be  absolute  or  qualified, 
general  or  partial,  according  to  the  exigencies  of  the  case.  The  principle  is, 
that  the  general  may  go  so  far,  and  no  farther,  than  is  absolutely  necessary 
to  the  defense  of  the  city  or  district  committed  to  his  protection.  To  this  ex 
tent  General  Jackson  was  justifiable ;  if  he  went  beyond  it  the  law  was  against 
him.  But,  in  point  of  fact,  he  did  not  supersede  the  laws,  nor  molest  the  pro 
ceedings  of  the  civil  tribunals,  any  farther  than  they  were  calculated  to  ob 
struct  the  execution  of  his  plans  for  the  defense  of  the  city.  In  all  other  re 
spects  the  laws  prevailed,  and  were  administered  as  in  times  of  peace,  until 


ME.  DOUGLAS   AND    GENERAL   JACKSON.  63 

the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Louisiana  passed  an  act  suspending  them  till 
the  month  of  May,  in  consequence  of  the  impending  danger  that  threatened 
the  city.  There  are  exigencies  in  the  history  of  nations  as  well  as  individ 
uals  when  necessity  becomes  the  paramount  law  to  which  all  other  consider 
ations  must  yield.  It  is  that  great  first  law  of  nature,  which  authorizes  a 
man  to  defend  his  life,  his  person,  his  wife  and  children,  at  all  hazards,  and 
by  every  means  in  his  power.  It  is  that  law  which  authorizes  this  body  to 
repel  aggression  and  insult,  and  to  protect  itself  in  the  exercise  of  its  legis 
lative  functions ;  it  is  that  law  which  enables  courts  to  defend  themselves  and 
punish  for  contempt.  It  was  this  same  law  which  authorized  General  Jack 
son  to  defend  New  Orleans  by  resorting  to  the  only  means  m  his  power  which 
could  accomplish  the  end.  In  such  a  crisis,  necessity  confers  the  authority 
and  defines  its  limits.  If  it  becomes  necessary  to  blow  up  a  fort,  it  is  right  to 
do  it ;  if  it  is  necessary  to  sink  a  vessel,  it  is  right  to  sink  it ;  and  if  it  is  nec 
essary  to  burn  a  city,  it  is  right  to  burn  it.  I  will  not  fatigue  the  committee 
with  a  detailed  account  of  the  occurrences  of  that  period,  and  the  circum 
stances  surrounding  the  general,  which  rendered  the  danger  immediate  and 
impending,  the  necessity  unavoidable,  the  duty  imperative,  and  temporizing 
ruinous.  That  task  has  been  performed  with  such  felicity  and  fidelity  by  the 
gentleman  from  Louisiana  (Mr.  Slidell)  as  to  make  a  recital  of  the  facts  en 
tirely  unnecessary.  The  enemy — composed  of  disciplined  troops,  exceeding 
our  force  four-fold  in  numbers — were  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  city, 
ready  for  the  attack  at  any  moment.  Our  own  little  flotilla  already  destroy 
ed  ;  the  city  filled  with  traitors,  anxious  to  surrender ;  spies  transmitting  in 
formation  daily  and  nightly  between  these  traitors  and  the  enemy's  camp ; 
the  population  mostly  emigrants  from  the  different  European  countries,  speak 
ing  various  languages,  unknown  to  the  general  in  command,  which  prevent 
ed  any  accurate  information  of  the  extent  of  the  disaffection  ;  the  dread  of  a 
servile  insurrection,  stimulated  by  the  proclamation  and  the  promises  of  the 
enemy,  of  which  the  firing  of  the  first  gun  was  to  be  the  signal — these  were 
some  of  the  reasons  which  produced  the  conviction  in  the  minds  of  all  who 
were  faithful  to  the  country  and  desirous  to  see  it  defended,  that  their  only 
salvation  depended  upon  the  existence  of  martial  law.  The  governor,  the 
judges,  the  public  authorities  generally,  and  all  the  citizens  who  espoused 
the  American  cause,  came  forward,  and  earnestly  entreated  General  Jack 
son,  for  their  sakes,  to  declare  martial  law,  as  the  only  means  of  maintaining 
the  supremacy  of  the  American  laws  and  institutions  over  British  authority 
within  the  limits  of  our  own  territory.  General  Jackson,  concurring  with 
them  in  opinion,  promptly  issued  the  order,  and  enforced  it  by  the  weight  of 
his  authority.  The  city  was  saved.  The  country  was  defended  by  a  suc 
cession  of  the  most  brilliant  military  achievements  that  ever  adorned  the  an 
nals  of  this  or  any  other  country,  in  this  or  any  other  age.  Martial  law  was 
continued  no  longer  than  the  danger  (and,  consequently,  the  necessity)  ex 
isted.  At  the  time  when  Louallier  was  imprisoned  and  Judge  Hall  was  sent 
out  of  the  city,  official  news  of  the  signing  of  the  treaty  at  Ghent  had  not 
been  received;  hostilities  had  not  ceased;  nor  had  the  enemy  retired.  On 
the  very  day  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  for  Louallier  was  returnable,  General 
Jackson  received  official  instructions  from  the  War  Department  to  raise  ad 
ditional  troops,  and  prepare  for  a  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war.  Hearing 
a  rumor,  on  the  same  day,  that  a  treaty  of  peace  had  been  signed,  he  sent  a 
proposition  to  the  British  general  for  a  cessation  of  hostilities  until  official  in 
telligence  should  be  received,  which  proposition  was  rejected  by  the  English 
commander.  It  can  not  be  said,  therefore,  that  the  war  had  closed,  or  the 
necessity  for  martial  law  had  ceased.  All  the  considerations  which  induced 
its  declaration  required  its  continuance.  If  it  was  right  to  declaa-e  it,  it  was 
right  to  enforce  and  continue  it.  At  all  events,  Judge  Hall  and  his  eulogists 


64  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

are  estopped  from  denying  the  power  or  the  propriety  of  the  declaration  or 
the  enforcement  of  martial  law.  He  advised,  urged,  and  solicited  General 
Jackson  to  declare  it,  and  subsequently  expressed  his  approbation  of  the  act. 
Yes,  even  that  learned,  that  profound,  that  immaculate  judge,  D.  A.  Hall, 
himself  advised  and  approved  of  the  proceeding.  Did  he  not  understand 
the  Constitution  and  laws  Avhich  it  was  his  duty  to  administer?  or,  under 
standing  them,  did  he  advise  General  Jackson  to  do  an  act  in  direct  violation 
of  that  Constitution  which  he  was  sworn  to  support  and  protect  ?  Conscien 
tious  judge  !  Advise  a  military  officer,  when  in  the  discharge  of  a  high  and 
responsible  duty,  to  violate  the  Constitution,  and  then  arrest  and  punish  him, 
without  evidence  ^>r  trial,  for  that  very  violation! 

Rare  specimen  of  judicial  integrity !  Perfidiously  advise  the  general  for 
the  purpose  of  entrapping  him  into  the  commission  of  an  unlawful  act,  that 
he  might  wreak  his  vengeance  upon  him  according  to  the  most  approved 
forms  of  the  Star  Chamber !  I  would  like  to  hear  from  his  most  ardent  ad 
mirers  on  this  floor  upon  that  point.  It  is  material  to  the  formation  of  a 
correct  judgment  upon  the  merits  of  this  question.  One  of  two  things  is 
necessarily  ti-ue  in  this  matter :  either  he  was  guilty  of  the  most  infamous, 
damnable  perfidy,  or  he  believed  that  General  Jackson  was  acting  within  the 
scope  of  his  rightful  authority  for  the  defense  of  the  country,  its  Constitution, 
and  laws.  In  either  event,  his  conduct  was  palpably  and  totally  indefensi 
ble.  Having  advised  the  course  which  General  Jackson  pursued — even  if 
he  had  changed  his  opinion  as  to  the  correctness  of  that  advice,  and  the  le 
gality  of  the  acts  which  had  been  committed  in  pursuance  of  it,  and  even  if, 
under  these  circumstances,  he  had  felt  it  his  duty  to  vindicate  the  supremacy 
of  the  laws  and  the  authority  of  his  court  by  inflicting  the  penalty  of  the  law 
— yet  a  mere  nominal  fine  (one  cent)  would  have  accomplished  that  object  as 
effectually  as  one  thousand  dollars.  In  this  view,  it  was  not  a  case  requiring 
exemplary  punishment.  He  did  not  doubt — he  would  not  doubt — that  the 
general  had  acted  conscientiously,  under  a  high  sense  of  duty ;  and  if  he  had 
exceeded  his  authority,  if  he  had  committed  an  error,  it  was  an  error  into 
which  he  had  been  led  by  the  advice  of  that  very  judge,  whose  duty  it  was  to 
know  the  law  and  advise  correctly,  and  who  afterward,  with  the  shameless 
perversity  of  his  nature,  enforced  a  vindictive  penalty.  I  boldly  assert  that 
the  judgment  was  vindictive,  because  the  amount  of  the  fine,  under  the  cir 
cumstances  of  the  case,  is  conclusive  upon  that  point.  But  if  I  should  grant, 
for  the  sake  of  argument  (that  which  I  do  not  admit),  that  General  Jackson 
exceeded  his  authority,  and  thereby  violated  the  Constitution  and  laws,  and 
that  Judge  Hall  was  clothed  with  the  competent  power  to  punish  the  of 
fense,  still  I  am  prepared  to  show  that,  even  in  that  event,  the  judgment  was 
unjust,  irregular,  and  illegal.  The  champions  of  Judge  Hall  on  this  floor 
have  debated  the  question  as  if  the  mere  declaration  of  martial  law  of  itself 
was  a  contempt  of  court,  without  reference  to  the  fact  whether  it  actually 
interrupted  and  obstructed  the  proceedings  of  the  court.  Was  there  ever  a 
more  fatal  and  egregious  error?  Every  unlawful  act  is  not  necessarily  a 
contempt  of  court.  A  man  may  be  guilty  of  every  offense  upon  the  whole 
catalogue  of  crime,  and  thus  obtain  for  himself  an  unenviable  immortality, 
without  committing  a  contempt  of  court.  The  doctrine  of  contempts  only 
applies  to  those  acts  which  obstruct  the  proceedings  of  the  court,  and  against 
which  the  general  laws  of  the  land  do  not  afford  adequate  protection.  It  is 
this  same  doctrine  of  necessity,  conferring  power,  and  at  the  same  time  re 
stricting  its  exercise  within  the  narrow  limits  of  self-defense.  The  rights  of 
the  citizen,  the  liberties  of  the  people  of  this  cotmtry,  are  secured  by  that 
provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  which  declares  that  "  the 
trial  of  all  crimes,  .except  in  cases  of  impeachment,  shall  be  by  jury;"  and 
also  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution  which  requires  "a  presentment 


ME.  DOUGLAS   AND   GENERAL   JACKSON.  65 

or  indictment  of  a  grand  jury."  General  Jackson,  as  well  as  the  humblest 
citizen  and  the  vilest  criminal,  was  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  these  constitu 
tional  provisions.  If  he  had  violated  the  Constitution,  and  suspended  the 
laws,  and  committed  crimes,  Judge  Hall  had  no  right  to  punish  him  by  the 
summary  process  of  the  doctrine  of  contempts,  without  indictment,  or  jury,  or 
evidence,  or  the  forms  of  trial.  It  is  incumbent  upon  those  who  defend  and 
applaud  the  conduct  of  the  judge  to  point  out  the  specific  act  done  by  Gen 
eral  Jackson  which  constituted  a  contempt  of  court.  The  mere  declaration 
of  martial  law  is  not  of  that  character.  If  it  was  improperly  and  unnecessa 
rily  declared,  the  general  was  liable  to  be  tried  by  a  court-martial,  according 
to  the  rules  and  articles  of  war  established  by  Congress  for  that  purpose.  It 
was  a  matter  over  which  the  civil  tribunals  had  no  jurisdiction,  and  with 
which  they  had  no  concern,  unless  some  specific  crime  had  been  committed 
or  injury  done ;  and  not  even  then  until  it  was  brought  before  them  accord 
ing  to  the  forms  of  law.  Some  specifications  have  been  made  in  the  speeches 
of  gentlemen  against  General  Jackson,  which  I  will  notice  in  their  proper 
order. 

The  first  is  the  arrest  and  imprisonment  of  Louallier  on  the  charge  of  in 
stigating  treason  and  mutiny  in  the  general's  camp.  It  is  immaterial  for  the 
purposes  of  this  discussion  whether  he  was  actually  guilty  or  not.  He  stood 
charged  with  the  commission  of  high  crimes,  the  punishment  of  which  was 
death.  He  was  believed  to  be  guilty,  and  consequently  there  was  probable 
cause  for  his  arrest  and  commitment  for  trial,  according  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  courts.  If  permitted  to  go  at  large,  he  might  have  matured  and  executed 
his  plans  of  mutiny  and  treason  by  the  aid  of  the  British  army,  which  was 
then  hovering  around  the  city.  But,  supposing  this  arrest  to  have  been  con- 
traiy  to  law,  as  gentlemen  contend,  yet  it  was  no  contempt  of  court.  If  it 
was  an  offense  at  all,  it  was  a  case  of  false  imprisonment,  which  was  indicta 
ble  before  a  grand  jury  and  triable  by  a  petit  jury.  Why  did  they  not  pro 
ceed  iigainst  General  Jackson  according  to  law,  and  give  him  a  trial  by  a 
jury  of  his  country,  and  obtain  a  verdict  according  to  evidence  ?  The  an 
swer  is  obvious :  they  could  not  pi'ocure  a  verdict  of  "  Guilty"  from  an  hon 
est  and  patriotic  jury  who  had  fought  in  defense  of  the  city  under  the  opera 
tion  of  that  "terrible  martial  law,"  and  who  had  witnessed  the  necessity  for 
its  declaration,  and  its  glorious  effects  in  the  salvation  of  the  country. 

The  next  specification  which  gentlemen  make  against  General  Jackson  is, 
that  he  did  not  appear  before  Judge  Hall  in  obedience  to  a  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  issued  by  the  judge  for  the  liberation  of  Louallier,  who  was  in  confine 
ment  on  a  charge  of  mutiny  and  treason.  A  simple  statement  of  the  facts 
of  this  case  will  carry  with  it  the  general's  justification.  The  evidence  shows 
that  the  writ  was  issued  on  the  fifth  of  the  month,  and  made  returnable  on  the 
sixth,  before  Judge  Hall,  at  eleven  o'clock  in  the  morning,  and  that  it  was 
never  served  on  General  Jackson,  or  shown  to  him,  until  the  evening  after 
ward.  Hence  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  have  complied  with  the  injunc 
tions  of  that  writ,  if  he  had  desired  to  do  so.  The  writ  had  spent  its  force, 
had  expired,  -wasfunctus  offido  before  it  reached  General  Jackson.  There 
was  no  command  of  the  court  remaining  that  could  be  obeyed,  the  time  had 
elapsed.  These  facts  were  distinctly  set  forth  by  General  Jackson,  under 
oath,  in  his  answer  to  the  rule  of  court  requiring  him  to  show  cause  why  he 
should  not  be  punished  for  contempt ;  and  they  have  never  been  denied.  In 
fact,  there  is  an  abundance  of  corroborative  evidence  to  the  same  effect. 
From  these  facts,  it  is  clear,  first,  that  General  Jackson  had  committed  no 
contempt  of  court ;  and,  secondly,  if  he  had,  he  fully  purged  himself  of  the 
alleged  offense. 

The  next  specification  in  the  catalogue  of  crimes  which  gentlemen  charge 
upon  the  hero  of  New  Orleans  is,  that  he  forcibly  seized  and  retained  posses- 


66  LIFE  OF  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

sion  of  the  writ,  and  the  affidavit  on  which  it  was  issued.  The  facts  are, 
that  when  the  writ  and  affidavit  were  brought  to  him  for  service,  after  the 
time  for  its  return  had  elapsed  and  it  had  become  a  nullity,  he  discovered 
that  a  material  alteration  had  been  made,  in  the  handwriting  of  the  judge, 
not  only  in  the  writ,  but  also  in  the  affidavit,  without  the  consent  of  the  man 
who  had  sworn  to  it.  These  alterations  of  themselves  rendered  the  papers 
void,  even  if  they  had  been  originally  valid,  and  had  not  expired  of  their  own 
limitation ;  but,  as  they  contained  the  evidence  upon  their  face  of  the  crime 
of  forgery,  it  was  important  that  General  Jackson  should  retain  possession  of 
them,  lest  they  should  be  destroyed  and  the  evidence  lost.  With  this  view, 
the  general  did  retain  the  originals  and  furnish  certified  copies  to  the  judge. 
These  transactions  did  not  occur  in  the  presence  of  the  judge  or  his  court,  nor 
when  his  court  was  in  session,  and,  of  course,  could  not  legally  be  punished 
by  the  summary  process  of  contempt.  If  they  were  illegal,  why  not  give  the 
benefit  of  a  fair  trial  by  a  jury  of  his  country,  as  guaranteed  by  the  Constitu 
tion  and  laws  ?  No ;  this  was  arbitrarily  and  unjustly  withheld  from  him, 
thereby  denying  him  the  privilege  of  proving  his  innocence. 

The  next,  and  the  last,  of  these  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  imputed  to 
Jackson  at  New  Orleans  is  that  of  arresting  Judge  Hall  and  sending  him  be 
yond  the  limits  of  the  city,  with  instructions  not  to  return  until  peace  was  re 
stored.  The  justification  of  this  act  is  found  in  the  necessity  which  required 
the  declaration  of  martial  law,  and  its  continuance  and  enforcement  until  the 
enemy  should  have  left  our  shores,  or  the  treaty  of  peace  should  have  been 
ratified  and  published.  The  judge  had  confederated  with  Louallier  and  the 
rest  of  that  band  of  conspirators,  who  wrere  attempting  to  defeat  the  efforts  of 
the  American  general  for  the  defense  of  the  city.  Their  movements  were 
dangerous,  because  they  were  protected  by  the  pOAver  of  civil  law,  in  the  per 
son  of  Judge  Hall,  by  a  perversion  of  the  privileges  of  the  writ  of  habeas  cor 
pus.  The  general  was  driven  to  an  extremity,  in  which  he  was  compelled 
either  to  abandon  the  city  to  whatever  fate  the  conspirators  might  choose  to 
consign  it,  or  to  resolutely  maintain  his  authority  by  the  exertion  of  his  own 
power.  He  TOOK  THE  RESPONSIBILITY,  and  sent  the  judge  beyond  the  lines  of 
his  camp.  The  question  arises,  was  this  act  a  contempt  of  court?  The 
court  was  not  in  session,  he  did  not  interrupt  its  proceeding,  he  did  not  ob 
struct  its  progress,  but  he  did  imprison  the  man  who  had  been  exercising  the 
powers  of  judge.  If  that  imprisonment  had  been  unlawful,  the  general  was 
liable  to  be  indicted  for  false  imprisonment,  and,  like  any  other  offender,  to 
be  tried  and  condemned  according  to  the  forms  of  law.  But  the  judge  had 
no  right  to  say  "  vengeance  is  mine,"  and  I  will  visit  it  upon  the  head  of  my 
enemy  until  the  measure  of  my  revenge  is  full. 

Now,  sir,  I  have  disposed  of  all  the  specifications  of  crime,  and  oppression, 
and  tyranny  which  have  been  charged  upon  General  Jackson  by  his  enemies 
upon  this  floor,  in  connection  with  his  defense  of  New  Orleans.  I  have  en 
deavored  to  state  the  facts  truly,  and  fairly  apply  the  principles  of  law  to 
them.  I  will  thank  the  most  learned  and  astute  lawyer  upon  this  floor  to 
point  out  which  one  of  those  acts  was  a  contempt  of  court,  in  the  legal  sense 
of  that  term,  so  as  to  authorize  a  summary  infliction  of  punishment  without 
evidence,  trial,  or  jury  ?  No  gentleman  has  yet  specified  the  act,  and  ex 
plained  wherein  the  contempt  consisted  ;  and  I  presume  no  one  will  venture 
on  so  difficult  a  task.  It  is  more  prudent  to  deal  in  vague  generalities  and 
high-sounding  declamation,  first  about  the  horrors  of  arbitrary  power  and 
lawless  violence,  then  the  supremacy  of  the  laws  and  the  glorious  privileges 
of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  These  things  sound  very  well,  and  are  right  in 
their  proper  place.  I  do  not  wish  to  extenuate  the  one  or  depreciate  the 
other ;  but  when  I  hear  gentlemen  attempting  to  justify  this  unrighteous  fine 
upon  General  Jackson  upon  the  ground  of  non-compliance  with  rules  of 


MR.  DOUGLAS   AND   GENERAL   JACKSON.  67 

court  and  mere  formalities,  I  must  confess  that  I  can  not  appreciate  the  force 
of  the  argument.  In  cases  of  war  and  desolation,  in  times  of  peril  and  dis 
aster,  we  should  look  at  the  substance  and  not  the  shadow  of  things.  I  envy 
not  the  feelings  of  the  man  who  can  reason  coolly  and  calmly  about  the  force 
of  precedents  and  the  tendency  of  examples  in  the  fury  of  the  war-cry,  when 
"  booty  and  beauty"  is  the  watchword.  Talk  not  to  me  about  rules  and  forms 
in  court  when  the  enemy's  cannon  are  pointed  at  the  door,  and  the  flames  en 
circle  the  cupola !  The  man  whose  stoicism  would  enable  him  to  philos 
ophize  coolly  under  these  circumstances  would  fiddle  while  the  Capitol  was 
burning,  and  laugh  at  the  horror  and  anguish  that  surrounded  him  in  the 
midst  of  the  conflagration  !  I  claim  not  the  possession  of  these  remarkable 
feelings.  I  concede  them  all  to  those  who  think  that  the  savior  of  New 
Orleans  ought  to  be  treated  like  a  criminal  for  not  possessing  them  in  a 
higher  degree.  Their  course  in  this  debate  has  proved  them  worthy  disci 
ples  of  the  doctrine  they  profess.  Let  them  receive  all  the  encomiums  which 
such  sentiments  are  calculated  to  inspire. 

But,  sir,  for  the  purposes  of  General  Jackson's  justification,  I  care  not 
whether  his  proceedings  were  legal  or  illegal,  constitutional  or  unconstitu 
tional,  with  or  without  precedent,  if  they  were  necessary  for  the  salvation 
of  that  city.  And  I  care  as  little  whether  he  observed  all  the  rules  and  forms 
of  court,  and  technicalities  of  the  law,  which  some  gentlemen  seem  to  con 
sider  the  perfection  of  reason  and  the  essence  of  wisdom.  There  was  but 
one  form  necessary  on  that  occasion,  and  that  was  to  point  cannon  and  de 
stroy  the  enemy.  The  gentleman  from  New  York  (Mr.  Barnard),  to  whose 
speech  I  have  had  occasion  to  refer  so  frequently,  has  informed  us  that  this 
bill  is  unprecedented.  I  have  no  doubt  this  remark  is  technically  true  ac 
cording  to  the  most  approved  forms.  I  presume  no  case  can  be  found  on 
record,  or  traced  by  tradition,  where  a  fine,  imposed  upon  a  general  for  sav 
ing  his  country,  at  the  peril  of  his  life  and  reputation,  has  ever  been  refund 
ed.  Such  a  case  would  furnish  a  choice  page  in  the  history  of  any  country. 
I  grant  that  it  is  unprecedented,  and  for  that  reason  we  desire  on  this  day 
to  make  a  precedent  which  shall  command  the  admiration  of  the  world,  and 
be  transmitted  to  future  generations  as  an  evidence  that  the  people  of  this 
age  and  in  this  country  were  not  unjust  to  their  benefactor.  This  bill  is  un 
precedented,  because  no  court  ever  before  imposed  a  fine  under  the  same  cir 
cumstances.  In  this  respect  Judge  Hall  himself  stands  unprecedented. 

The  gentleman  from  Louisiana  (Mr.  Dawson),  who  addressed  the  commit 
tee  the  other  day,  told  us  that  General  Wilkinson  declared  martial  law  at 
New  Orleans  and  enforced  it  at  the  time  of  Burr's  conspiracy.  Where  was 
Judge  Hall  then  that  he  did  not  vindicate  the  supremacy  of  the  laws  and  the 
authority  of  his  court  ?  Why  did  he  not  then  inflict  the  penalty  of  the  law 
upon  the  perpetrator  of  such  a  gross  infraction  of  the  Constitution  which  he 
was  sworn  to  defend  and  support  ?  Perhaps  his  admirers  here  will  tell  us 
that  he  did  not  advise,  and  urge,  and  entreat  General  Wilkinson  to  declare 
martial  law.  I  believe  that  feature  does  distinguish  the  two  cases,  and 
gentlemen  are  entitled  to  all  the  merit  they  can  derive  from  it.  I  am  in 
formed  that  in  one  of  those  trying  cases  during  the  last  war,  which  required 
great  energy  and  nerve,  and  self-sacrificing  patriotism,  General  Gaines  had 
the  firmness  to  declare  martial  law  at  Sackett's  Harbor ;  and  when,  after  the 
danger  had  passed,  he  submitted  himself  to  the  civil  authorities,  he  received 
the  penalty  of  the  law  in  the  shape  of  a  public  dinner  instead  of  a  vindictive 
punishment.  I  doubt  not  many  other  cases  of  a  similar  nature  may  be 
found,  if  any  one  will  take  the  trouble  of  examining  the  history  of  our  two 
wars  with  Great  Britain.  But  if  the  gentleman  from  New  York  intended  to 
assert  that  it  was  unprecedented  for  Congress  to  remunerate  military  and 
naval  commanders  for  fines,  judgments,  and  damages  assessed  against  them 


68  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

by  courts  for  violating  the  laws  in  the  honest  discharge  of  their  public  duties, 
I  must  be  permitted  to  inform  him  that  he  has  not  examined  the  legislation 
of  his  country  in  that  respect.  If  the  gentleman  will  read  the  speech  of  the 
pure,  noble,  and  lamented  Linn  in  the  Senate,  in  May,  1842,  he  will  find 
there  a  long  list  of  cases  in  which  laws  of  this  kind  have  been  passed. 

He  said,  "There  were  precedents  innumerable  where  officers  have  been 
found  guilty  of  breaches  of  law  in  the  discharge  of  their  public  duty,  and 
therefore  calling  for  the  interference  of  a  just  government.  Of  these  it  is 
only  necessary  to  introduce  a  few  where  the  government  did  interpose  and 
give  relief  to  the  injured  officer.  These  cases  commenced  as  early  as  August, 
1790,  and  have  continued  down  to  the  present  time.  Thus,  in  April,  1818, 
Major  General  Jacob  Brown  was  indemnified  for  damages  sustained  under 
sentence  of  civil  law  for  having  confined  an  individual  found  near  his  camp 
suspected  of  traitorous  designs. 

"At  the  same  session  Captain  Austin  and  Lieutenant  Wells  were  indemni 
fied  against  nine  judgments,  amounting  to  upward  of  $6000, for  having  con 
fined  nine  individuals  suspected  of  treachery  to  the  country.  In  this  case 
it  was  justly  remarked  by  the  secretary  of  war  (John  C.  Calhoun),  that  'if 
it  should  be  determined  that  no  law  authorized'  the  act,  'yet  I  would  re 
spectfully  suggest  that  there  may  be  cases  in  the  exigencies  of  the  war  in 
which,  if  the  commander  should  transcend  his  legal  power,  Congress  ought 
to  protect  him,  and  those  who  acted  under  him,  from  consequential  dam 
ages.  ' 

"In  the  case  of  General  Robert  Swartwout  in  1823,  the  committee  by 
whom  it  was  reported  stated  that  '  it  is  considered  one  of  those  extreme  cases 
of  necessity  in  which  an  overstepping  of  the  established  legal  rules  of  society 
stands  fully  justified. '  " 

I  will  not  occupy  the  time  of  the  committee  with  further  quotations,  but 
will  refer  those  who  may  wish  to  examine  the  subject  to  the  speech  itself,  and 
the  cases  there  cited. 

These  cases  fully  sustain  the  position  I  have  taken,  and  prove  that  the 
government  has  repeatedly  recognized  and  sanctioned  the  doctrine  that  in 
cases  of  "  extreme  necessity  the  commander  is  fully  justified"  in  superseding 
the  civil  laws,  and  that  Congress  will  always  "make  remuneration  when  they 
are  satisfied  he  acted  with  the  sole  view  of  promoting  the  public  interests  con 
fided  to  his  command."  The  principle  deducible  from  all  the  cases  is,  that 
when  the  necessity  is  extreme  and  unavoidable,  the  commander  is  fully  justi 
fied,  provided  he  acted  in  good  faith  ;  and,  in  either  event,  Congress  will  al 
ways  make  remuneration.  Then,  sir,  I  trust  I  have  shown  to  the  satisfaction 
of  all  candid  men  that,  instead  of  this  bill  being  unprecedented,  the  opposi 
tion — the  fierce,  bitter,  vindictive  opposition  to  its  passage  is  unprecedented 
in  the  annals  of  American  legislation.  Are  gentlemen  desirous  of  making 
General  Jackson  an  exception  to  those  principles  of  justice  which  have  pre 
vailed  in  all  other  cases  ?  They  mistake  the  character  of  the  American  peo 
ple  if  they  suppose  they  sever  the  cords  which  bind  them  to  their  great  ben 
efactor  by  continued  acts  of  wanton  injustice  and  base  ingratitude. 

Why  this  persevering  resistance  to  the  will  of  the  people,  which  has  been 
expressed  in  a  manner  too  imperative  and  authoritative  to  be  successfully  re 
sisted  ?  The  people  demand  this  measure,  and  they  will  never  be  quieted 
until  their  wishes  shall  have  been  respected  and  their  will  obeyed.  They 
will  ask,  they  will  demand  the  reason  why  General  Jackson  has  been  select 
ed  as  the  victim,  and  his  case  made  an  ignominious  exception  to  the  princi 
ples  which  have  been  adopted  in  all  other  cases,  from  the  foundation  of  the 
government  until  the  present  moment.  Was  there  any  thing  in  his  conduct 
at  New  Orleans  to  justify  this  wide  departure  from  the  uniform  practice  of 
the  government,  and  single  him  out  as  an  outlaw  who  had  forfeited  all  claim 


MK.  DOUGLAS   AND   GENERAL   JACKSON.  69 

to  the  justice  and  protection  of  his  country  ?  Does  the  man  live  who  will 
have  the  hardihood  to  question  his  patriotism,  his  honesty,  the  purity  of  his 
motives  in  every  act  he  performed,  and  every  power  he  exercised  on  that 
trying  occasion  ?  While  none  dare  impeach  his  motives,  they  tell  us  he  as 
sumed  almost  unlimited  power. 

I  commend  him  for  it ;  the  exigency  required  it.  I  admire  that  elevation 
of  soul  which  rises  above  all  personal  considerations,  and,  regardless  of  con 
sequences,  stakes  life,  and  honor,  and  glory  upon  the  issue,  when  the  salva 
tion  of  the  country  depends  upon  the  result.  I  also  admire  that  calmness, 
moderation,  and  submission  to  rightful  authority,  which  should  always  pre 
vail  in  times  of  peace  and  security.  The  conduct  of  General  Jackson  fur 
nished  the  most  brilliant  specimens  of  each  the  world  ever  witnessed.  I 
know  not  which  to  applaud  most,  his  acts  of  high  responsibility  and  deeds 
of  noble  daring  in  the  midst  of  peril  and  danger,  or  his  mildness,  and  mod 
eration,  and  lamb-like  submission  to  the  laws  and  civil  authorities  when  peace 
was  restored  to  his  country. 

Can  gentlemen  see  nothing  to  admire,  nothing  to  commend,  in  the  closing 
scenes,  when,  fresh  from  the  battle-field,  the  victorious  general — the  idol  of 
his  army  and  the  acknowledged  savior  of  his  countrymen — stood  before  Judge 
Hall,  and  quelled  the  tumult  and  indignant  murmurs  of  the  multitude  by 
telling  him  that  "the  same  arm  which  had  defended  the  city  from  the  rav 
ages  of  a  foreign  enemy  should  protect  him  in  the  discharge  of  his  duty?" 
Is  this  the  conduct  of  a  lawless  desperado,  who  delights  in  trampling  upon 
Constitution,  and  law,  and  right  ?  Is  there  no  reverence  for  the  supremacy 
of  the  laws  and  the  civil  institutions  of  the  country  displayed  on  this  occa 
sion  ?  If  such  acts  of  heroism  and  moderation,  of  chivalry  and  submission, 
have  no  charms  to  excite  the  admiration  or  soften  the  animosities  of  gentlemen 
in  the  Opposition,  I  have  no  desire  to  see  them  vote  for  this  bill.  The  char 
acter  of  the  hero  of  New  Orleans  requires  no  endorsement  from  such  a  source. 
They  wish  to  fix  a  mark,  a  stigma  of  reproach,  upon  his  character,  and  send 
him  to  his  grave  branded  as  a  criminal.  His  stern,  inflexible  adherence  to 
Democratic  principles,  his  unwavering  devotion  to  his  country,  and  his  in 
trepid  opposition  to  her  enemies,  have  so  long  thwarted  their  unhallowed 
schemes  of  ambition  and  power,  that  they  fear  the  potency  of  his  name  on 
earth,  even  after  his  spirit  shall  have  ascended  to  heaven. 

The  bill  passed  the  House,  and  subsequently  passed  the  Sen 
ate. 

After  the  adjournment  of  Congress,  Messrs.  Polk  and  Clay 
having  been  nominated  for  the  Presidency  by  their  respective 
parties,  a  monster  convention  was  held  at  Nashville,  Tennessee, 
to  which  delegations  and  distinguished  men  from  all  the  West 
ern  States  were  invited.  A  large  delegation  from  Illinois,  in 
cluding  Mr.  Douglas,  went  to  Nashville.  The  attendance  was 
immense.  A  letter  now  before  us  from  one  who  was  present 
states :  "  It  was  a  monster  gathering ;  forty  acres  were  scarce 
ly  able  to  afford  standing-room  for  the  vast  assemblage  of  men 
and  women  there  collected  from  nearly  every  state  in  the 
Union.  Some  of  the  most  brilliant  orators  in  the  country  were 
there ;  the  masses  hung  upon  their  lips  day  after  day  with  in 
creased  interest,  but  at  last  the  hour  came  for  the  adjournment. 


70  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.  DOUGLAS. 

Many  had  come  from  a  great  distance,  not  only  to  attend  the 
convention,  but  also  to  see  that  GEEAT  MAN  who  had  for  so 
long  a  period  and  so  prominently  occupied  the  hearts  of  his 
countrymen.  They  could  not  leave  without  the  long-wished- 
for  pleasure  of  seeing  ANDREW  JACKSON.  The  moment  the 
speaking  had  closed,  the  immense  throng  turned  their  steps  to^ 
ward  the  '  Hermitage.'  I  remember  well  the  appearance  of  the 
vast  procession — the  countless  multitude,  as  it  came  surging 
down  the  main  road  leading  to  the  home  of  Jackson.  As  the 
people  entered  the  avenue  leading  from  the  high  road  to  the 
plain  but  capacious  dwelling,  the  old  patriot,  though  feeble 
from  age,  roused  himself  once  more  to  receive  the  sincere  and 
unbought  homage  of  his  grateful  and  confiding  countrymen. 
He  took  a  seat  on  a  sofa  in  the  large  hall  opposite  to  the  porch 
and  entrance.  The  multitude  filled  every  standing-point  in 
front  of  the  mansion.  Affectionate  friends  surrounded  him ; 
the  throng  asked  but  the  privilege  of  seeing  and  taking  him  by 
the  hand  once  more.  They  approached  in  files,  shook  hands 
with  him,  and  then  passed  on  through  the  hall.  Thousands 
passed  thus  before  the  old  hero.  *  *  *  *  At  last  our  friend, 
Judge  Douglas,  of  Illinois,  approached.  I  remember  well  how 
pale  he  looked,  and  how  small  and  plain  he  seemed  beside  the 
hundreds  of  robust  and  gallant  specimens  of  Tennessee  man 
hood.  Governor  Clement  C.  Clay,  of  Alabama,  a  senator  of 
the  United  States,  had  been  for  some  time  acting  as  the  me 
dium  of  introduction  to  strangers.  The  scene  that  ensued  was 
one  never  to  be  forgotten." 

One  of  the  Illinois  delegation  who  accompanied  Judge 
Douglas  was  WILLIAM  WALTERS,  Esq.,  the  editor  of  the  "  IL 
LINOIS  STATE  REGISTER,"  the  most  influential  as  well  as  the 
ablest  conducted  paper  in  the  state.  Mr.  Walters  was  with 
Judge  Douglas  at  the  moment  of  his  introduction  to  General 
Jackson,  and  on  his  return  to  Springfield  a  few  days  thereafter 
he  published  the  following  description  of  what  took  place : 

"Every  thing  that  relates  to  Andrew  Jackson,  the  hero  of  New  Orleans 
and  the  friend  of  his  country,  is  of  deep  interest  to  the  American  people ; 
and  although  the  incident  we  are  about  to  relate  is  in  itself  of  no  great  in 
terest,  it  becomes  so  to  us  in  consequence  of  those  connected  with  it. 

"At  the  Nashville  Convention  of  August  last,  we  visited  the  Hermitage, 
only  twelve  miles  distant,  in  company  with  Judge  Douglas,  of  this  state,  and 
some  others  of  our  fellow-citizens.  The  Hermitage  was  crowded  with  peo 
ple  from  almost  every  state,  who  had  been  invited  thither  by  the  venerable 
patriot  on  the  day  succeeding  the  convention. 


ME.  DOUGLAS  AND  GENERAL  JACKSON.          71 

"Governor  Clay,  of  Alabama,  was  near  General  Jackson,  who  was  him 
self  sitting  on  a  sofa  in  the  hall,  and  as  each  person  entered,  the  governor  in 
troduced  him  to  the  hero  and  lie  passed  along.  When  Judge  Douglas  was 
thus  introduced,  General  Jackson  raised  his  still  brilliant  eyes  and  gazed  for 
a  moment  in  the  countenance  of  the  judge,  still  retaining  his  hand.  'Are 
you  the  Mr.  Douglas,  of  Illinois,  who  delivered  a  speech  last  session  on  the 
subject  of  the  fine  imposed  on  me  for  declaring  martial  law  at  New  Orleans  ?' 
asked  General  Jackson. 

"  '  I  have  delivered  a  speech  in  the  House  of  Representatives  upon  that 
subject,'  was  the  modest  reply  of  our  friend. 

"  'Then  stop,'  said  General  Jackson  ;  '  sit  down  here  beside  me.  I  de 
sire  to  return  you  my  thanks  for  that  speech.  You  are  the  first  man  that 
has  ever  relieved  my  mind  on  a  subject  which  has  rested  upon  it  for  thirty 
years.  My  enemies  have  always  charged  me  with  violating  the  Constitution 
of  my  country  by  declaring  martial  law  at  New  Orleans,  and  my  friends  have 
always  admitted  the  violation,  but  have  contended  that  circumstances  justi 
fied  me  in  that  violation.  I  never  could  understand  how  it  was  that  the  per 
formance  of  a  solemn  duty  to  my  country — a  duty  which,  if  I  had  neglected, 
would  have  made  me  a  traitor  in  the  sight  of  God  and  man,  could  properly 
be  pronounced  a  violation  of  the  Constitution.  I  felt  convinced  in  my  own 
mind  that  I  was  not  guilty  of  such  a  heinous  offense ;  but  I  could  never  make 
out  a  legal  justification  of  my  course,  nor  has  it  ever  been  done,  sir,  until 
you,  on  the  floor  of  Congress,  at  the  late  session,  established  it  beyond  the 
possibility  of  cavil  or  doubt.  I  thank  you,  sir,  for  that  speech.  It  has  re 
lieved  my  mind  from  the  only  circumstance  that  rested  painfully  upon  it. 
Throughout  my  whole  life  I  never  performed  an  official  act  which  I  viewed 
as  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  my  country ;  and  I  can  now  go  down  to 
the  grave  in  peace,  with  the  perfect  consciousness  that  I  have  not  broken,  at 
any  period  of  my  life,  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  my  country. ' 

"Thus  spoke  the  old  hero,  his  countenance  brightened  by  emotions  which 
it  is  impossible  for  us  to  describe.  We  turned  to  look  at  Douglas — he  was 
speechless.  He  could  not  reply,  but  convulsively  shaking  the  aged  veteran's 
hand,  he  rose  and  left  the  hall.  Certainly  General  Jackson  had  paid  him 
the  highest  compliment  he  could  have  bestowed  on  any  individual." 

It  has  been  stated  publicly,  and  we  know  of  no  reason  for 
questioning  the  truth  of  the  statement,  that  General  Jackson, 
at  his  death,  bequeathed  all  his  papers  to  FRANCIS  P.  BLAIR, 
the  editor  of  the  "Washington  Globe,  and  that  among  them 
was  found  the  pamphlet  copy  of  Judge  Douglas's  speech,  with 
an  endorsement,  in  Jackson's  own  handwriting,  signed  by  him, 
in  these  words :  "  This  speech  constitutes  my  defense ;  I  lay  it 
aside  as  an  inheritance  for  my  grandchildren." 

It  is  doubtful  whether,  in  the  long  and  eventful  public  life 
of  Mr.  Douglas,  there  has  ever  been  a  moment  when  words 
of  applause  and  approbation  have  ever  sounded  so  pleasant  in 
his  ears  as  those  thrilling  sentences  of  the  venerable  hero,  Gen 
eral  Jackson. 

On  the  8th  of  January,  1853,  the  magnificent  equestrian 
statue  of  Jackson,  by  Clark  Mills,  was  erected  in  Lafayette 
Square,  Washington  City,  and  the  committee  of  arrangements 


72  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

had  previously  invited  Mr.  Douglas  to  deliver  the  oration  on 
the  occasion.  As  the  orator  was  selected  because  of  his  well- 
known  efforts  in  the  cause  of  the  patriot,  and  because  of  the 
high  esteem  in  which  General  Jackson  held  him,  the  invitation 
was  most  appropriately  directed  to  Mr.  Douglas.  On  that 
occasion  Mr.  Douglas  delivered  a  most  polished  and  graceful 
address,  in  which  he  reviewed  the  policy  of  preserving  the 
memory  of  the  deeds  of  the  great  and  good  by  the  aid  of  the 
highest  works  of  art.  He  gave,  also,  a  graphic  and  eloquent 
sketch  of  General  Jackson's  history,  personal,  military,  and  po 
litical,  and  pointed  with  a  touching  power  to  his  brilliant  ex 
ample  as  one  which  could  never  fail  to  deserve  the  approval  of 
the  American  people.  The  following  extract  gives,  in  a  few 
words,  his  rapid  recapitulation  of  General  Jackson's  peculiari 
ties  as  a  statesman. 

"  The  high  qualities  which,  in  a  different  theatre,  had  sus 
tained  him  in  every  emergency,  enabled  him  to  rise  superior 
to  all  resistance,  never  failed  him  in  his  civil  administration. 
Calm,  patient,  and  even  deferential  in  counsel,  when  his  opin 
ion  was  matured  and  his  resolution  formed  he  threw  all  the 
fiery  energy  of  his  nature  into  its  execution.  The  history  of 
his  civil  career,  like  that  of  his  military  campaigns,  consists  of 
a  rapid  succession  of  terrific  conflicts  and  brilliant  achievements, 
in  which  he  never  lost  a  battle  or  failed  in  a  skirmish.  His 
state  papers  will  stand  forth,  so  long  as  the  history  of  this  re 
public  shall  be  read,  as  imperishable  monuments  to  his  states 
manship." 

The  candid  observer  of  Mr.  Douglas's  own  course  as  a  states 
man  will  not  be  at  a  loss  to  know  whose  example  he  has  fol 
lowed  so  successfully  as  a  public  man  and  as  a  statesman. 


CHAPTER  Y. 

THE   ANNEXATION   OF  TEXAS   AND   MEXICAN   WAR. 

ME.  DOUGLAS  was  one  of  the  most  ardent  supporters  of  the 
annexation  of  Texas.  In  1844  the  Democratic  convention 
coupled  the  annexation  of  Texas  with  the  Oregon  question, 
and  thenceforth  Mr.  Douglas,  as  well  from  his  own  judgment 
as  because  they  formed  part  of  the  Democratic  platform,  stren 
uously  supported  both  measures.  A  portion  of  the  party  sur- 


THE   ANNEXATION    OF   TEXAS   AND    MEXICAN   WAR.  73 

rendered  54°  40',  much  to  his  regret  and  against  his  earnest 
protest;  but  he  still  adhered  to  the  other  measure,  and  was 
one  of  the  most  ftble  advocates  it  had  in  Congress.  His  speech 
on  the  annexation  of  Texas  stands  upon  the  record  not  exceed 
ed,  and  rarely  equaled,  in  point  of  ability,  by  any  of  the  very 
many  elaborate  speeches  made  upon  that  subject. 

While  the  joint  resolution  was  pending,  he  proposed  that 
the  Missouri  line  of  36°  30'  should  be  preserved  as  a  settle 
ment  of  the  slavery  question,  and  that  it  should  be  renewed 
and  perpetuated  in  the  resolution  of  annexation.  Though  the 
resolution  subsequently  adopted  was  not  the  one  proposed  by 
Mr.  Douglas,  yet  his  proposition  applying  the  line  of  36°  30' 
to  the  territory  acquired  by  the  annexation  was  incorporated 
into  the  measure,  and  subsequently  became  part  of  the  law. 
His  course  upon  this  point  is  sufficiently  elucidated  in  subse 
quent  chapters,  and  it  is  unnecessary  farther  to  refer  to  it  here. 

THE   MEXICAN   WAE. 

Texas  was  annexed  in  1845,  and  at  the  next  session  was  ad 
mitted  into  the  Union.  The  events  following  that  action  of 
the  United  States  resulted  in  the  invasion  of  American  soil  by 
Mexican  troops. 

On  the  llth  of  May,  1846,  President  Polk  informed  Con 
gress  that  war  existed  by  the  act  of  Mexico,  and  urged  that 
Congress  should  authorize  the  President  to  call  into  the  service 
of  the  United  States  a  force  of  volunteer  troops.  In  the  House 
of  Representatives  (of  which  Mr.  Douglas  was  then  a  member) 
the  message  was  read.  The  reading  of  the  most  voluminous 
correspondence  was  called  for.  The  message  and  correspond 
ence  were  laid  on  the  table,  and,  pending  a  motion  to  print, 
they  were  taken  from  the  table  and  referred  to  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole.  They  were  also  ordered  to  be  printed.  The 
House  then  went  into  Committee  of  the  Whole.  On  the  27th 
of  January  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  had  reported  a 
bill  authorizing  the  President  to  accept  the  services  of  volun 
teers  in  case  of  the  invasion  of  the  soil  of  the  United  States, 
etc.  The  bill  had  not  been  prepared  with  any  reference  to  a 
war  with  Mexico,  but  was  a  general  bill,  and  had  stood  on  the 
calendar  from  the  day  it  was  reported  without  any  action. 

This  bill  was  taken  up.  The  pommittee  rose  immediately, 
and  a  resolution  was  offered  to  close  debate  in  committee  on 

D 


74  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

that  bill  in  two  hours.  The  House  adopted  the  resolution,  re 
fusing  the  yeas  and  nays  on  the  question.  The  House  again 
went  into  committee,  and  a  large  portion  of  the  documents 
were  read,  occupying  an  hour  and  a  half  in  the  reading.  The 
peril  of  General  Taylor's  little  army  was  imminent,  and  imme 
diate  action  was  necessary.  The  bill  was  amended  so  as  to  au 
thorize  the  raising  of  50,000  volunteers,  and  appropriating  ten 
millions  of  dollars.  The  difficulty  was  in  arranging  the  pre 
amble.  Various  propositions  wTere  made,  and  the  preamble 
was  eventually  agreed  upon  in  the  following  words : 

"  Whereas,  by  the  act  of  the  Republic  of  Mexico,  a  state  of 
war  exists  between  that  government  and  the  United  States." 

Mr.  Delano,  of  Ohio,  offered  a  proviso  condemning  the  Pres 
ident  in  taking  armed  occupation  of  the  territory  lying  be 
tween  the  River  Nueces  and  the  Rio  del  Norte.  This  was 
rejected.  The  bill  was  reported  to  the  House.  The  vote  on 
adopting  the  preamble  was,  yeas  123,  nays  67.  The  bill  then 
passed,  yeas  174,  nays  14. 

The  subject  of  the  war  was  considered  and  debated  on  an 
appropriation  bill,  and  two  days  thereafter,  on  May  13th,  Mr. 
Delano  having  addressed  the  House,  Mr.  Douglas,  in  an  im 
promptu  reply,  made  a  most  thorough  vindication  of  the  war 
and  of  President  Polk's  policy.  That  speech  was  never  sur 
passed,  and,  as  it  is  part  of  his  history,  and  of  the  history  of 
the  administration  he  supported  so  ably,  it  is  here  annexed 
entire.  It  is  the  most  concise  and  yet  thorough  presentation 
of  the  title  of  the  United  States  to  the  Rio  del  Korte  as  the 
boundary  of  Texas  ever  presented  in  Congress.  The  speech 
was  regarded  then,  as  it  will  be  now,  as  a  most  powerful  argu 
ment  in  justification  of  the  war,  and  of  the  American  title  to 
the  whole  of  Texas.  Its  effect  upon  the  House  was  very  great. 
It  gave  to  Mr.  Douglas  an  increased  popularity,  and  added 
greatly  to  his  rising  fame  as  an  orator  and  debater.  His  col 
loquies  with  the  venerable  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS  drew  from 
that  gentleman  subsequently  the  highest  commendations  for 
their  readiness  and  ability. 

Mr.  Douglas  rose  to  reply  to  the  speech  of  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  (Mr. 
Delano),  who  had  just  taken  his  seat.  Several  members  proposed  that  the 
committee  rise,  with  a  view  to  adjournment,  that  he  might  speak  in  the 
morning,  if  he  preferred  that  course.  He  declined  to  avail  himself  of  their 
courtesy,  as  his  remarks  Avould  necessarily  be  desultory  and  without  prepara 
tion,  and  directed  principally  to  the  points  which  had  already  been  touched 


THE   ANNEXATION    OF   TEXAS   AND    MEXICAN   WAK.  75 

in  the  discussion.  My  object  (said  he)  is  to  vindicate  our  government  and 
country  from  the  aspersions  and  calumnies  which  have  been  cast  upon  them 
by  several  gentlemen  in  the  course  of  this  debate,  in  connection  with  the 
causes  which  have  led  to  the  existing  war  with  Mexico.  I  prefer  to  meet 
and  repel  those  charges  at  once,  while  they  are  fresh  in  our  minds,  and  to 
demonstrate,  so  far  as  my  feeble  abilities  will  enable  me  to  do  so,  that  our 
government  has  not  been  in  the  wrong,  and  Mexico  in  the  right,  in  the  origin 
and  progress  of  the  pending  controversy.  The  gentleman  from  Ohio  has 
been  so  kind  as  to  herald  my  expectant  advent  before  my  arrival,  and  to 
announce  that  I  was  about  to  follow  him  in  the  debate.  I  suppose  he  drew 
such  an  inference  from  the  fact  that  I  entered  the  hall  while  he  was  speak 
ing,  took  a  seat  near  him,  and  listened  to  his  speech  with  the  most  respectful 
attention.  He  certainly  had  no  other  authority  for  the  announcement. 
Acting  on  this  supposition,  he  has  addressed  a  large  portion  of  his  remarks 
to  me,  and  invited  a  special  answer  from  me  to  the  main  points  of  his  argu 
ment.  I  propose  to  gratify  him  in  this  request ;  and  while  I  shall  speak 
with  freedom  and  boldness  of  his  positions  and  arguments,  I  shall  endeavor 
to  observe  that  courtesy  toward  him  individually  which  is  consistent  with  an 
appropriate  reply  to  such  an  extraordinary  speech.  I  commend  the  patriot 
ism,  if  not  the  morality  of  the  sentiment  which  he  quoted  at  the  beginning, 
and  repeated  several  times  during  the  course  of  his  remarks  :  "I  go  for  my 
country,  right  or  wrong."  I  fear,  however,  that  this  sentiment,  once  so 
much  applauded  by  our  countrymen,  is  about  to  be  brought  into  ridicule 
and  contempt  by  the  use  which  that  gentleman  and  his  coadjutors  are  now 
disposed  to  make  of  it.  They  tell  us  that  they  go  for  their  country,  right  or 
wrong ;  but  they  insist  that  their  country  is  and  has  been  all  the  time  in  the 
wrong.  They  profess  to  support  the  war,  but  they  vote  against  the  law 
which  recognizes  its  existence  and  provides  the  means — the  money  and  the 
men — to  expel  a  hostile  army  that  has  invaded  our  country  and  butchered 
our  citizens.  They  profess  great  anxiety  for  the  triumph  of  our  arms,  but 
they  denounce  the  war — the  cause  in  which  our  country  is  engaged — as 
"  unholy,  unrighteous,  and  damnable." 

Mr.  J.  W.  Houston.  Who  made  use  of  that  expression  ?  Was  it  any  gen 
tleman  on  this  side  of  the  house  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.  Yes,  sir.  The  gentleman  from  Ohio  (Mr.  Delano),  who 
has  just  taken  his  seat,  made  use  of  the  identical  words,  and  repeated  them 
several  times,  with  great  emphasis,  in  the  course  of  his  speech,  while  the 
great  body  of  his  political  friends  listened  with  the  most  profound  respect, 
and  gave  every  indication  of  approbation  and  encouragement  by  expressions, 
looks,  and  nods  of  assent.  Even  now  I  see  the  venerable  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts  nodding  his  approval  of  the  sentiment. 

Mr.  J.  Q.  Adams.  Yes,  sir,  I  endorse  and  approve  every  word  and  syllable 
of  it. 

Mr.  Douglas.  So  I  supposed,  from  the  marked  indications  of  approbation 
which  that  gentleman  and  his  friends  gave  to  all  the  attacks  which  have  been 
made,  during  this  discussion,  upon  the  rights,  interests,  and  honor  of  our 
country.  He  is  more  bold  and  less  politic  in  the  expression  of  his  opinions. 

They,  after  a  little  reflection,  discover  the  expediency  of  concealment; 
but  the  lamentable  fact  is  too  palpable,  that  their  feelings  and  sympathies 
are  in  perfect  unison ;  since  he  has  had  the  hardihood  to  avow  the  sentiment, 
I  suppose  they  will  consider  its  profanity  and  moral  treason  perfectly  consist 
ent  with  their  professions  of  Christianity  and  patriotism.  What  reliance 
shall  we  place  on  the  sincerity  of  gentlemen's  professions,  that  they  are  for 
their  country,  right  or  wrong,  when  they  exert  all  their  power  and  influence 
to  put  their  country  in  the  wrong  in  the  eyes  of  Christendom,  and  invoke 
the  wrath  of  Heaven  upon  us  for  our  manifold  national  crimes  and  aggres- 


76  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A,   DOUGLAS. 

sions  ?  With  professions  of  patriotism  on  their  lips,  do  they  not  show  that 
their  hearts  are  with  the  enemy  ?  They  appeal  to  the  consciences  and  relig 
ious  scruples  of  our  countrymen  to  unite  in  execration  of  our  government  for 
supporting  what  they  denounce  as  an  unholy,  unrighteous,  and  damnable 
cause.  They  predict  that  the  vengeance  of  God  will  fall  upon  us ;  that 
sickness,  and  carnage,  and  death  will  be  our  portion ;  that  defeat  and  dis 
grace  will  attend  our  arms.  Is  there  not  treason  in  the  heart  that  can  feel, 
and  poison  in  the  breath  that  can  utter  such  sentiments  against  their  own 
country,  when  forced  to  take  up  arms  in  self-defense,  to  repel  the  invasion 
of  a  brutal  and  perfidious  foe  ?  They  for  their  country,  right  or  wrong  ! 
who  tell  our  people,  if  they  rally  under  their  country's  standard,  their  bones 
will  bleach  on  the  plains  of  Mexico,  and  the  enemy  will  look  down  from  the 
mountain-top  to  behold  the  destruction  of  our  armies  by  disease,  and  all  those 
mysterious  elements  of  death  which  divine  Providence  employs  to  punish  a 
wicked  people  for  prosecuting  an  unholy  and  unjust  war !  Sir,  I  tell  these 
gentlemen  it  requires  more  charity  than  falls  to  the  lot  of  frail  man  to  believe 
that  the  expression  of  such  sentiments  is  consistent  with  the  sincerity  of  their 
professions — with  patriotism,  honor,  and  duty  to  their  country.  Patriotism 
emanates  from  the  heart ;  it  fills  the  soul ;  inspires  the  whole  man  with  a 
devotion  to  his  country's  cause,  and  speaks  and  acts  the  same  language. 
America  wants  no  friends,  acknowledges  the  fidelity  of  no  citizen  who,  after 
war  is  declared,  condemns  the  justice  of  her  cause  and  sympathizes  with  the 
enemy.  All  such  are  traitoi-s  in  their  hearts,  and  it  only  remains  for  them 
to  commit  some  overt  act  for  which  they  may  be  dealt  with  according  to 
their  deserts.  The  gentleman  from  Ohio  has  condemned  the  action  of  his 
own  government,  not  only  on  account  of  the  war  and  the  causes  which  pro 
duced  it,  but  has  assailed  with  equal  virulence  all  efforts  to  restore  the  ami- 
cabla  relations  of  the  two  countries  by  peaceable  means.  He  has  arraigned 
the  administration  for  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Slidell  as  minister  to  Mexico 
on  an  errand  of  peace,  and  dwells  with  apparent  delight  and  triumph  on  the 
fruitless  results  of  the  mission.  He  is  dissatisfied  with  both  peace  and  war, 
is  willing  to  embrace  neither  alternative,  and  condemns  all  effoi'ts  to  adjust 
the  matters  in  dispute  by  either  means.  He  thinks  that  nothing  good  can 
come  out  of  Nazareth,  and  seems  determined  to  find  fault  with  his  own  gov 
ernment,  whatever  its  policy.  Not  content  with  assailing  the  administra 
tion  and  all  its  movements,  peaceful  and  belligerent,  he  has  passed  from  the 
Del  Norte  to  50°  40'  for  the  purpose  of  paying  his  respects  to  myself,  in  his 
own  peculiar  way.  He  has  been  pleased  to  represent  me  as  standing  on  an 
iceberg,  breathing  defiance  to  the  British  lion,  while  abandoned  by  a  portion 
of  my  own  friends,  upon  whose  support  I  had  a  right  to  rely  with  confidence. 
If  this  be  true,  it  was  a  grievance  personal  to  myself,  which  I  had  a  right 
to  avenge  in  my  own  way,  without  the  interference  of  the  gentleman  from 
Ohio. 

I  will  assure  you  that  I  have  never  been  disappointed  in  an  expectation 
that  he  would  stand  by  me  in  any  struggle  for  maintaining  the  rights  and 
honor  of  the  country,  whether  in  reference  to  Texas  or  Oregon.  In  regard 
to  that  portion  of  my  political  friends  to  whom  he  alludes,  I  am  free  to  con 
fess  that  I  did  sincerely  regret  that  they  did  not  take  the  same  view  of  our 
rights  and  duties  in  respect  to  the  Oregon  question  which  I  entertained  and 
fearlessly  expressed.  I  made  no  disguise  of  my  sentiments  and  feelings. 
Oar  disagreement  on  that  question  was  open  and  unequivocal.  I  did  con 
demn  their  refusal  to  take  up  their  position  on  54°  40',  and  stand  there,  re 
gardless  of  consequences.  My  opinions  have  undergone  no  change  in  that 
respect.  But  it  is  due  to  them  that  I  should  now  say  that  I  never  question 
ed  their  patriotism,  nor  doubted  for  a  moment  that,  the  instant  war  existed, 
they  would  rally  as  one  man  to  their  country's  standard,  merging  and  ef- 


THE   ANNEXATION   OP   TEXAS   AND   MEXICAN   WAK.  77 

facing  the  slightest  trace  of  a  previous  difference  of  opinion.  Patriots  may 
differ  as  to  the  expediency  of  a  declaration  of  war,  or  the  wisdom  of  a  course 
of  policy  which  may  probably  lead  to  such  a  result,  but  honor  and  duty  for 
bid  divided  counsels  after  our  country  has  been  invaded,  and  American  blood 
has  been  shed  on  American  soil  by  a  treacherous  foe.  Party  strife  and  po 
litical  conflicts  should  then  cease.  One  sentiment  should  animate  every 
heart;  one  object  control  every  movement — the  triumph  of  our  countiy. 
Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  could  have  anticipated  the  extraordinary  turn  which  has 
been  given  to  this  discussion,  I  could  have  presented  to  the  committee  and 
the  country  a  mass  of  evidence,  from  official  documents,  sufficient  to  show 
that,  for  years  past,  we  have  had  ample  cause  of  war  against  Mexico,  inde 
pendent  of  the  recent  bloody  transactions  upon  the  Rio  del  Norte.  I  could 
have  presented  a  catalogue  of  aggressions  and  insults ;  of  outrages  on  our 
national  flag — on  the  persons  and  property  of  our  citizens ;  of  the  violation 
of  treaty  stipulations,  and  the  murder,  robbery,  and  imprisonment  of  our 
countrymen — the  very  recital  of  which  would  suffice  to  fill  the  national  heart 
with  indignation.  Well  do  I  recollect  that  General  Jackson,  during  the  last 
year  of  his  administration,  deemed  the  subject  of  sufficient  importance  at  that 
time  to  send  a  special  message  to  Congress,  in  which  he  declared,  "The  wan 
ton  character  of  some  of  the  outrages  upon  the  persons  and  property  of  our 
citizens,  upon  the  officers  and  flag  of  the  United  States,  independent  of  re 
cent  insults  to  this  government  and  people  by  the  late  extraordinary  Mex 
ican  minister,  would  justify,  in  the  eyes  of  nations,  immediate  war."  I  have 
neither  the  time  nor  the  documents  before  me  to  enable  me  to  go  into  a  re 
cital  of  the  details  of  these  Mexican  enormities.  They  were  sufficient,  how 
ever,  in  the  opinion  of  General  Jackson,  to  justify  an  immediate  resort  to 
arms.  But  her  weakness  and  distracted  condition  softened  our  resentment, 
and  induced  us  to  endure  her  aggressions.  It  is  characteristic  of  our  coun 
try  to  be  magnanimous  where  forbearance  does  not  become  pusillanimity  or 
a  gross  dereliction  of  duty.  I  fear  we  carried  our  magnanimity  too  far  in 
this  instance.  Certain  it  is  that  it  produced  no  beneficial  results ;  for  at  the 
very  next  session  Mr.  Van  Buren  was  under  the  necessit}r  of  calling  the  at 
tention  of  Congress  to  the  subject,  and  adding  to  the  old  catalogue  a  long 
list  of  new  grievances,  asking  for  authority  to  issue  letters  of  reprisal  in  case 
prompt  satisfaction  should  not  be  made.  I  have  in  a  book  before  rne  an  ex 
tract  from  the  report  of  the  secretary  of  state  (Mr.  Forsyth)  to  the  President, 
to  which  I  will  invite  the  attention  of  those  who  have  not  examined  the  sub 
ject: 

"  Since  the  last  session  of  Congress  an  embargo  has  been  laid  on  Amer 
ican  vessels  in  the  ports  of  Mexico.  Although  raised,  no  satisfaction  has 
been  made  or  offered  for  the  resulting  injuries.  Our  merchant  vessels  have 
been  captured  for  disregarding  a  pretended  blockade  of  Texas ;  vessels  and 
cargoes,  secretly  proceeded  against  in  Mexican  tribunals,  condemned  and 
sold.  The  captains,  crews,  and  passengers  of  the  captured  vessels  have  been 
imprisoned  and  plundered  of  their  property ;  and,  after  enduring  insults  and 
injuries,  have  been  released  without  remuneration  or  apology.  For  these 
acts  no  reparation  has  been  promised  or  explanations  given,  although  satis 
faction  was,  in  general  terms,  demanded  in  July  last." 

Aside  from  the  insults  to  our  flag,  the  indignity  to  the  nation,  and  the  in 
jury  to  our  commerce,  it  is  estimated  that  not  less  than  ten  millions  of  dol 
lars  are  due  to  our  citizens  for  these  and  many  other  outrages  which  Mexico 
has  committed  within  the  last  fifteen  years.  When  pressed  by  our  govern 
ment  for  adjustment  and  remuneration,  she  has  resorted  to  all  manner  of  ex 
pedients  to  procrastinate  and  delay.  She  has  made  treaties  acknowledging 
the  justice  of  our  claims,  and  then  refused  to  ratify  them,  on  the  most  friv 
olous  pretexts,  and,  even  when  ratified,  has  failed  to  comply  with  their  stip- 


78  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

illations.  The  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  of  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  in  1837  made  a  report  upon  the  subject,  in  which  they  said,  "If  the 
government  of  the  United  States  were  to  exact  strict  and  prompt  redress  from 
Mexico,  your  committee  might  with  justice  recommend  an  immediate  resort 
to  war  or  reprisal."  The  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs  on  the  part  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  at  the  same  session,  say:  "The  merchant  vessels 
of  the  United  States  have  been  fired  into,  her  citizens  attacked  and  even  put 
to  death,  and  her  ships  of  war  treated  with  disrespect  when  paying  a  friend 
ly  visit  to  a  port  where  they  had  a  right  to  expect  hospitality;"  and,  in  con 
clusion,  the  committee  observe  that  "  they  fully  concur  with  the  President 
that  ample  cause  exists  for  taking  redress  into  their  own  hands,  and  believe 
we  should  be  justified,  in  the  opinion  of  other  nations,  for  taking  such  a  step." 
Such  was  the  posture  of  our  affairs  with  Mexico  in  1837  and  1838,  and  the 
opinion  of  the  several  departments  of  our  government  in  regard  to  the  char 
acter  and  enormity  of  the  outrages  complained  of.  These  transactions  all 
occurred  years  before  the  question  of  the  annexation  of  Texas  was  favorably 
entertained  by  our  government.  We  had  been  the  first  to  recognize  the  in 
dependence  of  Texas,  as  well  as  that  of  Mexico,  before  the  national  existence 
of  either  had  been  acknowledged  by  the  parent  country.  In  doing  this  we 
only  exercised  an  undoubted  right,  according  to  the  laws  of  nations,  and  our 
example  was  immediately  followed  by  France,  England,  and  all  the  principal 
powers  of  Europe.  The  question  of  the  annexation  of  Texas  to  this  country 
was  not  then  seriously  mooted.  The  proposition  had  been  made  by  Texas, 
and  promptly  rejected  by  our  government.  Of  course,  there  could  be  noth 
ing  growing  out  of  that  question  which  could  have  given  the  slightest  cause 
of  offense  to  Mexico,  or  can  be  urged  in  palliation  of  the  monstrous  outrages 
which  for  a  long  series  of  years  previous  she  had  been  committing  upon  the 
rights,  interests,  and  honor  of  our  country.  But  our  causes  of  complaint  do 
not  stop  here.  In  1842,  Mr.  Thompson,  our  minister  to  that  country,  felt 
himself  called  upon  to  issue  an  address  to  the  diplomatic  corps  at  Mexico,  in 
which,  after  reciting  our  grievances,  he  said : 

"Not  only  have  we  never  done  an  act  of  an  unfriendly  character  toward 
Mexico,  but  I  confidently  assert  that,  from  the  very  moment  of  the  existence 
of  the  republic,  we  have  allowed  to  pass  unimproved  no  opportunity  of  doing 
Mexico  an  act  of  kindness.  I  will  not  now  enumerate  the  acts  of  that  char 
acter,  both  to  the  government  of  Mexico  and  to  the  citizens,  public  and  pri 
vate.  If  this  government  choose  to  forget  them,  I  will  not  recall  them. 
While  such  has  been  our  course  to  Mexico,  it  is  with  pain  I  am  forced  to  say 
that  the  open  violation  of  the  rights  of  American  citizens  by  the  authorities 
of  Mexico  have  been  greater  for  the  last  fifteen  years  than  those  of  all  the 
governments  of  Christendom  united ;  and  yet  we  have  left  the  redress  of  all 
these  multiplied  and  accumulated  wrongs  to  friendly  negotiation,  without 
having  ever  intimated  a  disposition  to  resort  to  force." 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  all  these  insults  and  injuries  were  commit 
ted  before  the  annexation  of  Texas  to  the  United  States — before  the  propo 
sition  was  ever  seriously  entertained  by  this  government.  Of  course,  the 
subsequent  consummation  of  that  measure  can  afford  no  pretext  for  these 
atrocities  previously  committed.  The  same  system  of  plunder  and  outrage 
wras  pursued,  only  on  a  smaller  scale,  toward  France  and  England.  For  of 
fenses  of  the  samec  haracter,  only  less  aggravated,  and  not  one  tenth  as 
numerous,  France  made  her  demand  for  reparation,  and  proclaimed  her  ul 
timatum  from  the  deck  of  a  man-of-war  off  Vera  Cruz.  Redress  being  de 
nied,  the  French  fleet  opened  their  batteries  on  the  castle  of  San  Juan  de 
Ulloa,  and  compelled  the  fortress  to  surrender  and  the  Mexican  government 
to  accede  to  their  demands,  and  pay  two  hundred  thousand  dollars  in  addi 
tion,  to  defray  the  expenses  of  enforcing  the  payment  of  the  claim.  The 


THE   ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS   AND   MEXICAN   WAE.  79 

English  government  also  presented  claims  for  remuneration  to  her  subjects 
for  similar  outrages.  Wearied  of  the  dilatory  action  ,x)f  the  Mexican  Con 
gress,  the  British  minister  presented  his  ultimatum,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
informed  the  Mexican  government  that,  in  the  event  of  non-compliance  with 
the  demand,  he  was  instructed  to  inform  the  admiral  of  the  Jamaica  station 
of  the  fact,  who  had  been  instructed  to  act  in  that  case,  and  employ  force  in 
compelling  an  acquiescence.  The  aifair  was  speedily  arranged  to  the  satis 
faction  of  the  British  government.  Thus  we  find  that  remuneration  and 
satisfaction  were  made  to  England  and  France  for  the  same  injuries  of  which 
we  complain,  where  their  subjects  and  our  citizens  were  common  sufferers. 
Still  the  wrongs  of  our  citizens  are  unredressed,  and  the  indignity  to  the 
honor  and  flag  of  the  country  unavenged.  Our  wrongs  were  ten-fold  greater 
than  theirs  in  number,  enormity,  and  amount.  Their  complaints  have  been 
heard  in  tones  of  thunder  from  the  mouths  of  their  cannon,  and  have  been 
adjusted  according  to  the  terms  dictated  by  the  injured  parties.  The  for 
bearance  of  our  government  to  enforce  our  rights  by  the  same  efficient  meas 
ures  which  they  employed  has  been  considered  as  evidence  of  our  imbecility, 
which  gave  impunity  to  the  past  and  license  to  future  aggressions.  Hence 
we  find  that  while  Great  Britain  and  France,  by  the  energy  and  efficiency 
with  which  they  enforced  their  rights,  have  commanded  the  respect  of  Mex 
ico  and  re-established  their  amicable  relations,  the  United  States,  by  an  ill- 
advised  magnanimity  and  forbearance  toward  a  weak  and  imbecile  neigh 
bor,  has  forfeited  her  respect,  and  lost  all  the  advantages  of  that  friendly  in 
tercourse  to  which  our  natural  position  entitles  us.  Under  the  operation  of 
these  causes,  our  commerce  Avith  Mexico  has  dwindled  down  by  degrees  from 
nine  millions  of  dollars  per  annum  to  a  mere  nominal  sum,  while  that  of 
France  and  England  has  steadily  increased,  until  they  have  secured  a  monop 
oly  of  the  trade  and  almost  a  controlling  influence  over  the  councils  of 
that  wretched  country.  Such  was  the  relative  position  of  Mexico  toward 
the  United  States  and  other  countries  when  the  controversy  in  regard  to  the 
annexation  of  Texas  arose.  The  first  proposition  for  annexation  had  been 
promptly  rejected — in  my  opinion  very  unwisely — from  a  false  delicacy  to 
ward  the  feelings  of  Mexico.  When  the  question  was  again  agitated,  she 
gave  notice  to  this  government  that  she  would  regard  the  consummation  of 
the  measure  as  a  declaration  of  war.  She  made  the  passage  of  the  resolu 
tion  of  annexation  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  the  pretext  for  dis 
solving  the  diplomatic  relations  between  the  two  countries.  She  peremptorily 
recalled  her  minister  from  Washington,  and  virtually  dismissed  ours  from 
Mexico,  permitting  him,  as  in  the  case  of  all  his  predecessors,  to  be  robbed 
by  her  banditti  according  to  the  usages  of  the  country.  This  was  followed 
by  the  withdrawal  of  the  Mexican  consuls  from  our  sea-ports,  and  the  sus  - 
pension  of  all  commercial  intercourse.  Our  government  submitted  to  these 
accumulated  insults  and  injuries  with  patience  and  forbearance,  still  hoping 
for  an  adjustment  of  all  our  difficulties  without  being  compelled  to  resort  to 
actual  hostilities.  Impelled  by  this  spirit  of  moderation,  our  government  de 
termined  to  waive  all  matters  of  etiquette,  and  make  another  effort  to  restore 
the  amicable  relations  of  the  two  countries  by  negotiation.  An  informal 
application  was  therefore  made  to  the  government  of  Mexico  to  know  wheth 
er,  in  the  event  we  should  send  a  minister  to  that  country,  clothed  with  ample 
powers,  she  would  not  receive  him  with  a  view  to  a  satisfactory  adjustment. 
Having  received  an  affirmative  answer,  Mr.  Slidell  was  immediately  appoint 
ed  and  sent  to  Mexico.  Upon  his  arrival  he  presented  his  credentials  and 
requested  to  be  formally  received.  The  government  of  Mexico  at  first  hesi 
tated,  then  procrastinated,  and  finally  refused  to  receive  him  in  his  capacity 
of  minister.  Here,  again,  the  forbearance  of  our  government  is  most  signal 
ly  displayed.  Instead  of  resenting  this  renewed  insult  by  the  chastisement 


80  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

due  to  her  perfidy,  our  government  again  resolved  to  make  another  effort  for 
peace.  Accordingly,  Mr.  Slidell  was  instructed  to  remain  at  some  suitable 
place  in  the  vicinity  of  the  city  of  Mexico  until  the  result  of  the  revolution 
then  pending  should  be  known  ;  and,  in  the  event  of  success,  to  make  appli 
cation  to  the  new  government  to  be  received  as  minister.  Paredes  being 
firmly  established  in  power,  with  his  administration  formed,  Mr.  Slidell  again 
applied,  and  was  again  rejected.  In  the  mean  time,  while  these  events  were 
occurring  at  the  capital  of  Mexico,  her  armies  were  marching  from  all  parts 
of  the  republic  toward  the  boundary  of  the  United  States,  and  were  concen 
trating  in  large  numbers  at  and  near  Matamoras.  Of  course,  our  govern 
ment  watched  all  these  military  movements  with  interest  and  vigilance. 
While  we  were  anxious  for  peace,  and  were  using  all  the  means  in  our  power, 
consistent  with  honor,  to  restore  friendly  relations,  the  administration  was 
not  idle  in  its  preparations  to  meet  any  crisis  that  might  arise,  and,  if  neces 
sary  in  self-defense,  to  repel  force  by  force.  With  this  view  an  efficient 
squadron  had  been  sent  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  a  portion  of  the  army 
concentrated  between  the  Nueces  and  the  Kio  del  Norte,  with  positive  in 
structions  to  commit  no  act  of  aggression,  and  to  act  strictly  on  the  defens 
ive,  unless  Mexico  unfortunately  should  commence  hostilities  and  attempt  to 
invade  our  territory.  When  General  Taylor  pitched  his  camp  on  the  banks 
of  the  Rio  del  ISTorte,  he  sent  General  Worth  across  the  river  to  explain  to 
the  Mexican  general  and  the  civil  authorities  of  Matamoras  the  objects  of 
his  mission ;  that  his  was  not  a  hostile  expedition ;  that  it  was  not  his  inten 
tion  to  invade  Mexico  or  commit  any  act  of  aggression  upon  her  rights ; 
that  he  was  instructed  by  his  government  to  act  strictly  on  the  defensive,  and 
simply  to  protect  American  soil  and  American  citizens  from  invasion  and 
aggression ;  that  the  United  States  desired  peace  with  Mexico  ;  and,  if  hos 
tilities  ensued,  Mexico  would  have  to  strike  the  first  blow.  When  the  two 
armies  were  thus  posted  on  opposite  sides  of  the  river,  Colonel  Cross,  while 
riding  alone  a  few  miles  from  the  American  camp,  was  captured,  robbed, 
murdered,  and  quartered.  About  the  same  time  the  Mexican  general  sent 
a  notice  to  General  Taylor  that,  unless  he  removed  his  camp  and  retired  to 
the  east  side  of  the  Nueces,  he  should  compel  him  to  do  so.  Subsequently 
General  Arista  sent  a  message  to  General  Taylor  that  hostilities  already  ex 
isted.  On  the  next  day  a  small  portion  of  our  army,  while  reconnoitring 
the  country  on  the  American  side  of  the  river,  was  surrounded,  fired  upon, 
and  the  greater  portion  of  them  captured  or  killed.  It  was  then  discovered 
that  the  Mexican  army  had  crossed  the  river,  surrounded  the  American 
camp,  and  interposed  a  large  force  between  General  Taylor's  encampment 
and  Point  Isabel,  the  depot  of  his  provisions  and  military  stores. 

Here  we  have  the  causes  and  origin  of  the  existing  war  with  Mexico. 
The  facts  which  I  have  briefly  recited  are  accessible  to,  if  not  within  the 
knowledge  of,  evciy  gentleman  who  feels  an  interest  in  examining  them. 
Their  authenticity  does  not  depend  upon  the  weight  of  my  authority.  They 
are  to  be  found  in  full  and  in  detail  in  the  public  documents  on  our  tables 
and  in  our  libraries.  With  a  knowledge  of  the  facts,  or,  at  least,  professing 
to  know  them,  gentlemen  have  the  hardihood  to  tell  us  that  the  President 
has  unwisely  and  unnecessarily  precipitated  the  country  into  an  unjust  and 
unholy  war.  They  express  great  sympathy  for  Mexico ;  profess  to  regard 
her  an  injured  and  persecuted  nation — the  victim  of  American  injustice  and 
aggression.  They  have  no  sympathy  for  the  Avidows  and  orphans  whose 
husbands  and  fathers  have  been  robbed  and  murdered  by  the  Mexican  au 
thorities ;  no  sympathy. with  our  own  countrymen  who  have  dragged  out 
miserable  lives  within  the  walls  of  her  dungeons,  without  crime  and  without 
trial ;  no  indignation  at  the  outrages  upon  our  commerce  and  shipping,  and 
the  insults  to  our  national  flag ;  no  resentment  at  the  violation  of  treaties 
and  the  invasion  of  our  territory. 


THE   ANNEXATION   OF   TEXAS   AND   MEXICAN   WAS.  81 

I  will  now  proceed  to  examine  the  arguments  by  which  the  gentleman 
from  Ohio  [Mr.  Delano],  and  those  with  whom  he  acts,  pretend  to  justify 
their  foreign  sympathies.  They  assume  that  the  Kio  del  Norte  was  not  the 
boundary-line  between  Texas  and  Mexico ;  that  the  republic  of  Texas  never 
extended  beyond  the  Nueces,  and,  consequently,  that  our  government  was 
under  no  obligation,  and  had  no  right,  to  protect  the  lives  and  property  of 
American  citizens  beyond  that  river.  In  support  of  that  assumption,  the 
gentleman  has  referred  to  a  dispute  which  he  says  once  arose  between  the 
provinces  of  Coahuila  and  Texas,  and  the  decisions  of  Almonte,  and  some 
other  Mexican  general,  thereon,  prior  to  the  Texan  revolution,  and  while 
those  provinces  constituted  one  state  in  the  Mexican  confederation.  He  has 
also  referred  to  Mrs.  Holley's  History  of  Texas,  and,  perhaps,  some  other 
works,  in  which  we  are  informed  that  the  same  boundary  was  assigned  to 
the  Mexican  province  of  Texas.  I  am  not  entirely  unacquainted  with  the 
facts  and  authorities  to  which  the  gentleman  has  alluded,  but  I  am  at  a  loss 
to  discover  their  bearing  on  the  question  at  issue.  True  it  is  that  in  1827 
the  provinces  of  Coahuila  and  Texas  were  erected  into  one  state,  having 
formed  for  themselves  a  republican  constitution,  similar,  in  most  of  its  pro 
visions,  to  those  of  the  several  states  of  our  Union.  Their  constitution  pro 
vided  that  the  State  of  Coahuila  and  Texas  "  is  free  and  independent  of  the 
other  united  Mexican  states,  and  of  every  other  foreign  power  and  domin 
ion  ;"  that  "  in  all  matters  relating  to  the  Mexican  confederation  the  state 
delegates  its  faculties  and  powers  to  the  general  Congress  of  the  same  ;  but 
in  all  that  properly  relates  to  the  administration  and  entire  government  of 
the  state,  it  retains  its  liberty,  independence,  and  sovereignty ;"  that,  "there 
fore,  belongs  exclusively  to  the  same  state  the  right  to  establish,  by  means  of 
its  representatives,  its  fundamental  laws,  conformable  to  the  basis  sanctioned 
in  the  constitutional  act  and  the  general  constitution."  This  new  state,  com 
posed  of  a  union  of  the  two  provinces,  was  admitted  into  the  Mexican  con 
federacy  under  the  general  constitution  established  in  1824,  upon  the  condi 
tions  which  I  have  recited.  The  province  of  Coahuila  lay  on  the  west  side 
of  the  Rio  del  Norte,  and  Texas  upon  the  east.  An  uncertain,  undefined 
boundary  divided  them  ;  and,  so  long  as  they  remained  one  state,  there  was 
no  necessity  for  establishing  the  true  line.  It  is  immaterial,  therefore, 
whether  the  Nueces  or  the  Rio  del  Norte,  or  an  imaginary  line  between  the 
two,  was  the  boundary  between  Coahuila  and  Texas,  while  these  provinces 
constituted  one  state  in  the  Mexican  confederacy.  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary 
to  go  back  to  a  period  anterior  to  the  Texan  revolution  to  ascertain  the  lim 
its  and  boundaries  of  the  republic  of  Texas.  But,  if  the  gentleman  has  so 
great  a  reverence  for  antiquity  as  to  reject  all  authorities  which  have  not  be 
come  obsolete  and  inapplicable  in  consequence  of  the  changed  relations  of  that 
country,  I  will  gratify  his  taste  in  that  respect.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  Texas  (before  her  revolution)  was  always  understood  to  have  been  a  por 
tion  of  the  old  French  province  of  Louisiana,  whilst  Coahuila  was  one  of  the 
Spanish  provinces  of  Mexico.  By  ascertaining  the  western  boundary  of  Lou 
isiana,  therefore,  prior  to  its  transfer  by  France  to  Spain,  we  discover  the  di 
viding  line  between  Texas  and  Coahuila.  I  will  not  weary  the  patience  of 
the  House  by  an  examination  of  the  authorities,  in  detail,  by  which  this  point 
is  elucidated  and  established.  I  will  content  myself  by  referring  the  gentle 
man  to  a,  document  in  which  he  will  find  them  all  collected  and  analyzed  in 
a  masterly  manner,  by  one  whose  learning  and  accuracy  he  will  not  question. 
I  allude  to  a  dispatch  (perhaps  I  might  with  propriety  call  it  a  book,  from  its 
great  length)  written  by  our  secretary  of  state  in  1819  to  Don  (mis,  the  Span 
ish  minister.  The  document  is  to  be  found  in  the  State  Papers  in  each  of 
our  libraries.  He  will  there  find  a  multitudinous  collection  of  old  maps  and 
musty  records,  histories  and  geographies — Spanish,  English,  and  French — by 

D  2 


82  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

which  it  is  clearly  established  that  the  Rio  del  Norte  was  the  western  bound 
ary  of  Louisiana,  and  so  considered  by  Spain  and  France  both,  when  they 
owned  the  opposite  banks  of  that  river.  The  venerable  gentleman  from  Mas 
sachusetts  [Mr.  Adams]  in  that  famous  dispatch  reviews  all  the  authorities 
on  either  side  with  a  clearness  and  ability  which  defy  refutation,  and  demon 
strate  the  validity  of  our  title  in  virtue  of  the  purchase  of  Louisiana.  He 
went  farther,  and  expressed  his  own  convictions,  upon  a  full  examination  of 
the  whole  question,  that  our  title  as  far  as  the  Rio  del  Norte  was  as  clear  as 
to  the  island  of  New  Orleans.  This  was  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Adams  in  1819. 
It  was  the  opinion  of  Messrs.  Monroe  and  Pinckney  in  1805.  It  was  the  opin 
ion  of  Jefferson  and  Madison — of  all  our  presidents  and  of  all  administrations, 
from  its  acquisition  in  1803  to  its  fatal  relinquishment  in  1819.  I  make  no 
question  with  the  gentleman  as  to  the  applicability  and  bearing  of  these  facts 
upon  the  point  in  controversy.  I  give  them  in  opposition  to  the  supposed 
facts  upon  which  he  seems  to  rely.  I  give  him  the  opinions  of  these  eminent 
statesmen  in  response  to  those  of  Almonte  and  his  brother  Mexican  general. 
Will  the  gentleman  tell  us  and  his  constituents  that  those  renowned  states 
men,  including  his  distinguished  friend  [Mr.  Adams],  as  well  as  President 
Polk  and  the  American  Congress,  were  engaged  in  an  unholy,  unrighteous, 
and  damnable  cause  when  claiming  title  to  the  Rio  del  Norte  ?  I  leave  the 
gentleman  from  Ohio  and  his  venerable  friend  from  Massachusetts  to  settle  the 
disputed  point  of  the  old  boundary  of  Texas  between  themselves,  trusting  that 
they  may  agree  upon  some  basis  of  amicable  adjustment  and  compromise. 
But,  sir,  I  have  already  said  that  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  rely  upon 
those  ancient  authorities  for  a  full  and  complete  justification  of  our  govern 
ment  in  maintaining  possession  of  the  country  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Rio  del 
Norte.  Oar  justification  rests  upon  better  and  higher  evidence,  upon  a  firm 
er  basis — an  immutable  principle.  The  republic  of  Texas  held  the  country 
by  a  more  glorious  title  than  can  be  traced  through  the  old  maps  and  musty 
records  of  French  and  Spanish  courts.  She  held  it  by  the  same  title  that  our 
fathers  of  the  Revolution  acquired  the  territory  and  achieved  the  independ 
ence  of  this  republic.  She  held  it  by  virtue  of  a  successful  revolution,  a  dec 
laration  of  independence  setting  forth  the  inalienable  rights  of  man,  triumph 
antly  maintained  by  the  irresistible  power  of  her  arms,  and  consecrated  by  the 
precious  blood  of  her  glorious  heroes.  These  were  her  muniments  of  title. 
By  these  she  acquired  the  empire  which  she  has  voluntarily  annexed  to  our 
Union,  and  which  we  have  plighted  our  faith  to  protect  and  defend  against 
invasion  and  dismemberment.  We  received  the  republic  of  Texas  into  the 
Union  with  her  entire  territory  as  an  independent  and  sovereign  state,  and 
have  no  right  to  alienate  or  surrender  any  portion  of  it.  This  proposition  our 
opponents  admit,  so  far  as  respects  the  country  on  this  side  of  the  Nueces,  but 
they  deny  both  the  obligation  and  the  right  to  go  beyond  that  river.  Upon 
what  authority  they  assume  the  Nueces  to  have  been  the  boundary  of  the  re 
public  of  Texas  they  have  not  condescended  to  inform  us.  I  am  unable  to 
conceive  upon  what  grounds  a  distinction  can  be  drawn  as  to  our  right  to  the 
opposite  sides  of  that  stream.  I  know  nothing  in  the  history  of  that  repub 
lic,  from  its  birth  to  its  translation,  that  would  authorize  the  assumption. 
The  same  principles  and  evidence  which,  by  common  consent,  give  us  title  on 
this  side  of  the  Nueces,  establish  our  right  to  the  other.  The  revolution  ex 
tended  to  either  side  of  the  river,  and  was  alike  successful  on  both.  Upon 
this  point  I  speak  with  confidence,  for  I  have  taken  the  precaution,  within  the 
last  few  minutes,  to  have  the  facts  to  which  I  shall  refer  authenticated  by  the 
testimony  of  the  two  most  distinguished  actors  (one  of  whom  I  now  recognize 
in  my  eye)  of  those  thrilling  and  glorious  scenes.  Upon  this  high  authority,  I 
assume  that  the  first  revolutionary  army  in  Texas,  in  1835,  embraced  soldiers 
and  officers  who  were  residents  of  the  country  between  the  Nueces  and  the 


THE   ANNEXATION    OF   TEXAS   AND   MEXICAN   WAK.  83 

Bio  del  Norte.  These  same  heroic  men,  or  so  many  of  them  as  had  not  been 
butchered  by  the  Mexican  soldiery,  were  active  participators  in  the  battle  of 
San  Jacinto  On  the  21st  of  April,  183G,  when  Santa  Ana  was  captured  and 
the  Mexican  army  annihilated. 

Although  few  in  number,  and  sparsely  scattered  over  a  wide  surface  of 
country,  and  consequently  exposed  to  the  cruelties  and  barbarities  of  the  en 
emy,  none  were  more  faithful  to  the  cause  of  freedom,  and  constant  in  their 
devotion  to  the  interests  of  the  republic  throughout  its  existence.  Immedi 
ately  after  the  battle  of  San  Jacinto  Santa  Ana  made  a  proposition  to  the 
commander  of  the  Texan  army  (General  Houston)  to  make  a  treaty  of  peace, 
by  which  Mexico  would  recognize  the  independence  of  Texas,  with  the  Bio 
del  Norte  as  the  boundary.  In  May,  183G,  such  a  treaty  was  made  between 
the  government  of  Texas  and  Santa  Ana  on  the  part  of  the  Mexican  na 
tion,  in  which  the  independence  of  Texas  was  acknowledged,  and  the  Rio 
del  Norte  recognized  as  the  boundary.  In  pursuance  of  the  provision  of  this 
treaty,  the  remnant  of  the  Mexican  army  was  permitted,  under  the  orders  of 
Santa  Ana,  to  retire  beyond  the  confines  of  the  republic  of  Texas,  and  take 
a  position  on  the  other  side  of  the  Bio  del  Norte,  which  they  did  accordingly. 

Mr.  J.  W.  Houston.  Was  that  treaty  ever  ratified  by  the  government  of 
Mexico  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  am  not  aware  that  it  was  ratified  by  any  body  on  the  part 
of  the  government  of  Mexico  except  Santa  Ana  and  his  subordinate  officers, 
for  the  very  good  reason  that  he  was  himself  the  government  at  the  time. 
Only  one  year  previous  he  had  usurped  the  government  of  Mexico,  had  abol- 
ishe*d  the  Constitution  of  1824,  and  concentrated  all  the  powers  of  govern 
ment  in  his  own  hands.  To  give  stability  to  the  power  which  he  had  ac 
quired  by  the  sword,  he  called  a  Congress  around  him,  composed  of  his  fol 
lowers  and  adherents,  and  had  himself  formally  proclaimed  dictator  of  the 
republic,  and,  as  such,  clothed  with  all  the  powers  of  government,  civil  and 
military.  From  that  moment  the  government  of  Mexico  was  a  republic  in 
name,  but  a  military  despotism  in  fact.  She  had  no  Constitution,  no  govern 
ment,  except  the  will  of  the  dictator,  and  the  instruments  he  chose  to  select 
to  execute  his  will.  In  this  capacity,  he  marched  his  armies  into  Texas  for 
the  purpose  of  reducing  those  people  to  subjection  to  the  despotism  which  he 
had  established,  and  exterminating  the  last  vestige  of  freedom  which  remain 
ed  in  his  dominions.  The  Texans  flew  to  arms  in  defense  of  their  liberties, 
in  defense  of  the  form  of  government  which  they  had  established  for  them 
selves  by  their  state  Constitution  of  1827,  and  the  national  Constitution  of 
1824,  in  pursuance  of  the  provisions  of  which  they  had  been  admitted  as  a 
sovereign  state  into  the  Mexican  confederacy.  The  Texans  had  taken  up 
arms  in  support,  and  Santa  Ana  for  the  destruction,  of  the  Constitutional  gov 
ernment  in  Texas.  While  engaged  in  this  work  of  desolation  with  fire  and 
sword,  committing  butcheries  and  barbarities  unknown  to  civilized  warfare, 
Santa  Ana  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  heroic  Houston  and  his  gallant  litth 
army,  a  captive  to  those  whom  he  was  striving  to  reduce  to  captivity.  Then 
it  was  that  the  tyrant  became  a  suppliant — a  suppliant  for  his  life  and  liberty 
— at  the  hands  of  those  he  had  doomed  his  victims.  Then  the  dictator  bent 
his  knee  in  prayer  for  mercy,  and  sued  for  peace,  offering  to  recognize  the  in 
dependence  of  Texas  if  he  could  be  permitted  to  rescue  the  remnant  of  his 
followers  from  destruction,  and  remove  them  beyond  the  Bio  del  Norte.  A 
treaty  to  this  effect,  as  I  have  already  stated,  was  subsequently  entered  into  in 
due  form  ;  and,  in  pursuance  of  its  provisions,  the  Mexicans  evacuated  Texas, 
and  retired  beyond  the  Bio  del  Norte.  This  treaty  was  executed  by  Santa 
Ana  as  the  government  dc  facto  for  the  time  being,  and,  as  such,  was  bind 
ing  on  the  Mexican  nation. 

Mr.  J.  Q.  Adams.  I  desire  to  inquire  of  the  gentleman  from  Illinois  if 


84  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

Santa  Ana  was  not  a  prisoner  of  war  at  the  time,  and  in  duress  when  he  ex 
ecuted  that  treaty. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Santa  Ana  was  a  prisoner  and  in  duress,  and  so  was  the  en 
tire  government  of  Mexico,  for  he  was  at  that  time  the  government  de  facto, 
clothed  with  all  its  functions,  civil  and  military.  The  government  itself  was 
a  prisoner  and  in  duress.  But  will  it  be  contended  that  that  circumstance 
rendered  the  obligation  less  obligatory  ? 

Mr.  Adams.  It  is  a  strange  doctrine  that  the  acts  of  a  prisoner  while  in 
duress  are  to  be  deemed  valid  after  he  has  recovered  his  liberty. 

Mr.  Douglas.  We  are  at  war  with  Mexico.  Our  armies  will  soon  march 
into  the  heart  of  that  country.  I  trust  they  will  penetrate  as  far  as  the  cap 
ital,  and  capture  not  only  the  army,  but  the  government  itself  in  the  halls  of 
the  Montezumas,  that  we  may  make  them  all  prisoners  of  war,  and  keep  them 
in  duress  until  they  shall  make  a  treaty  of  peace  and  boundary  with  us,  by 
which  they  shall  recognize  not  only  the  "Rio  del  Norte,  but  such  other  line  as 
we  shall  choose  to  dictate  or  accept,  "Will  the  gentleman  from  Massachu 
setts  contend  that  a  treaty  made  with  us  under  those  circumstances  would  not 
be  binding,  because,  forsooth,  the  government  was  a  prisoner  at  that  time  ? 
How  is  a  conquered  nation  ever  to  make  peace  if  the  gentleman's  doctrine  is 
to  prevail  ?  Take  the  case  of  an  absolute  monarchy :  the  king  is  captured  in 
battle  at  the  head  of  his  army.  Both  parties  may  then  be  willing  to  settle 
the  dispute,  but  no  treaty  can  be  made  because  the  king  is  in  duress,  and,  of 
course,  the  victor  would 'not  release  his  royal  prisoner  until  a  treaty  of  peace 
had  been  executed,  lest  he  might  continue  hostilities,  and,  by  the  fortunes  of 
war,  triumph  in  the  contest.  This  doctrine  would  place  all  unfortunate  bel 
ligerents  in  a  most  deplorable  condition.  They  refuse  to  make  peace  before 
defeat,  because  they  hope  for  victory.  They  are  incompetent  to  do  it  after 
ward,  because  they  are  in  duress.  Surely  a  defeated  nation  would  find  itself 
in  a  lamentable  predicament.  Too  feeble  to  resist,  disarmed,  conqxiered,  and 
still  incompetent  to  make  a  treaty  of  peace  and  adjust  the  matter  in  dispute 
on  such  fair  and  equitable  terms  as  a  magnanimous  foe  might  propose,  be 
cause  the  war  of  aggression  which  they  had  commenced  had  resulted  disas 
trously,  and  made  them  captives.  I  fear,  if  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side 
succeed  in  establishing  their  doctrine,  they  will  soon  find  their  Mexican 
friends  in  a  dilemma  truly  pitiable.  Perhaps,  if  General  Paredes  and  his 
military  government  should  be  reduced  to  captivity,  these  gentlemen  would 
require  that  our  armies  should  retire  within  our  own  territory,  and  set  the 
prisoners  at  liberty,  before  negotiations  for  peace  should  be  opened.  This 
may  be  their  view  of  the  subject,  but  I  doubt  whether  it  is  the  view  which  the 
American  government  or  the  American  people  will  feel  it  their  duty  to  act 
upon.  Our  crude  notions  of  things  might  teach  us  that  the  city  of  Mexico 
was  a  very  suitable  place  for  conducting  the  negotiations.  I  must,  therefore, 
be  permitted  to  adhere  to  my  original  position  that  the  treaty  of  peace  and 
boundaries  between  Santa  Ana  and  the  Texan  government  in  May,  1836, 
was  binding  on  the  Mexican  nation,  it  having  been  executed  by  the  govern 
ment  de  facto  for  the  time  being. 

Mr.  Adams.  Has  not  that  treaty  with  Santa  Ana  been  since  discarded  by 
the  Mexican  government  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  presume  it  has,  for  I  am  not  aware  of  any  treaty  or  com 
pact  which  that  government  ever  entered  into  that  she  did  not  afterward 
either  violate  or  repudiate.  The  history  of  our  treaty  stipulations  with  her 
furnishes  ample  ground  for  this  presumption.  I  have  not  deemed  it  necessa 
ry  to  inquire  what  particular  acts  of  disavowal,  if  any,  have  been  since  adopt 
ed  by  the  Mexican  government.  It  is  sufficient  for  my  purpose  that  the 
treaty  was  entered  into  by  competent  authority  at  the  time  of  its  execution. 
The  acts  cf  a  government  de  facto  are  binding  on  the  nation  as  against  for- 


THE   ANNEXATION    OF   TEXAS    AND   MEXICAN   WAR.  85 

eign  nations,  without  reference  to  the  mode  by  which  that  government  was 
established,  whether  by  revolution,  usurpation,  or  rightful  and  constitutional 
means. 

Mr.  Adams.  I  deny  it.     I  deny  the  proposition. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  will  not  enter  into  an  elaborate  discussion  of  the  laws  of 
nations  on  the  point  with  the  learned  gentleman  from  Massachusetts.  I  will 
say,  however,  that  I  understand  writers  on  international  law  to  lay  down  the 
principle  as  I  have  stated.  Certainly  the  practice  and  usages  of  all  civilized 
nations  sanction  it,  of  which  history  furnishes  innumerable  examples.  Does 
the  gentleman  deny  the  validity  of  the  acts  of  the  British  government  in  the 
times  of  Cromwell  because  it  was  a  mere  government  de  facto,  established  in 
blood,  in  violation  of  the  English  Constitution  ?  Many  of  the  most  import 
ant  treaties  affecting  the  destiny  of  Europe  were  made  with  the  British  gov 
ernment  during  that  period ;  and  who  ever  heard  of  a  European  sovereign 
denying  their  obligation  or  failing  to  claim  the  benefits  of  them  ?  More  re 
cent  and  memorable  instances  may  be  found  in  our  claims  of  indemnities 
against  France,  Naples,  and  Spain,  for  injuries  which  we  sustained  during 
the  French  Revolution.  We  did  not  permit  these  countries  to  exonerate  them 
selves  from  the  obligation  to  make  us  compensation  upon  the  pretext  that 
Napoleon,  Murat,  and  Joseph  Bonaparte  were  military  despots,  who  had  as 
cended  the  thrones  through  blood  and  violence.  We  recognized  them  as  the 
heads  of  those  governments  de  facto,  while  seated  on  the  thrones  of  the  le-^ 
gitimate  kings  of  those  countries,  and  subsequently  held  the  nations  responsi 
ble  for  all  their  invasions  of  our  rights.  Spain,  Naples,  and  France  have  each 
acknowledged  the  obligation  and  granted  indemnities.  Will  the  gentleman 
deny  the  validity  of  the  purchase  of  Louisiana  upon  the  ground  that  it  was 
made  with  a  usurper,  who  was  afterward  taken  prisoner  and  dethroned? 
With  as  little  propriety  may  he  reject  Santa  Ana's  treaty  with  Texas,  and  our 
treaties  with  the  presidents  and  dictators  of  Mexico,  who  have  successively 
and  alternately  seized  the  reins  of  that  government  at  short  intervals,  and 
banished  or  beheaded  their  predecessors,  and  changed  the  forms  of  govern 
ment  to  suit  their  purposes.  In  these  and  all  similar  cases  the  usages  of  the 
civilized  world  sanction  the  doctrine  for  which  I  contend,  that  the  govern 
ment  de  facto,  for  the  time  being,  is  recognized,  and  the  nation  held  respons 
ible  for  its  acts,  without  inquiring  into  the  means  by  which  it  was  establish 
ed,  or  allowing  the  obligation  to  be  dissolved  by  subsequent  revolutions  or 
disavowals.  I  am  not  now  discussing  the  question  whether  the  distinctions 
attempted  to  be  established  in  England  on  the  termination  of  the  Wars  of 
the  Roses,  between  the  rival  houses  of  Lancaster  and  York,  were  well  found 
ed  or  not.  I  do  not  pretend  to  say  whether  it  is  a  settled  principle  of  the 
laws  of  nations  that  there  is  such  a  distinction  between  governments  de  facto 
and  governments  de  jure  as  some  gentlemen  insist  upon.  I  wish  to  avoid  all 
immaterial  issues,  for  I  have  had  no  opportunity  for  investigation  or  prepar 
ation  on  these  points.  All  I  insist  upon  in  this  discussion  is  that  the  acts  of 
the  government  de  facto,  for  the  time  being,  are  binding  on  the  nation  in  re 
spect  to  foreign  states.  It  is  immaterial,  therefore,  whether  Mexico  has  or 
has  not  disavowed  Santa  Ana's  treaty  with  Texas.  It  was  executed  at  the 
time  by  competent  authority.  She  availed  herself  of  all  its  benefits.  By 
virtue  of  it  she  saved  the  remnant  of  her  army  from  total  annihilation,  and 
had  her  captive  dictator  restored  to  liberty.  Under  it  she  was  permitted  to 
remove,  in  peace  and  security,  all  her  soldiers,  citizens,  and  property,  beyond 
the  Rio  del  Norte.  The  question  is,  had  she  a  moral  and  legal  right  to  re 
pudiate  it  after  she  had  enjoyed  all  its  advantages? 

The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  attempts  to  apply  the  legal  maxims 
relative  to  civil  contracts  to  this  transaction.  Because  an  individual  who 
enters  into  a  contract  while  in  duress  has  a  right  to  disavow  it  when  restored 


86  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

to  his  liberty,  he  can  see  no  reason  why  Santa  Ana  could  not  do  the  same 
thing.  I  shall  not  go  into  an  argument  to  prove  that  the  rights  of  a  nation, 
in  time  of  war,  are  not  identical  with  these  of  a  citizen,  under  the  municipal 
laws  of  his  own  country,  in  a  state  of  peace.  But  if  I  should  admit  the  just 
ness  of  the  supposed  parallel,  I  apprehend  the  gentleman  would  not  insist 
upon  the  right  to  rescind  the  contract  without  placing  the  parties  in  statu  quo ; 
for  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  Santa  Ana  was  a  prisoner  according  to  the 
rules  of  war,  and  consequently  in  lawful  custody.  Is  the  gentleman  prepared 
to  show  that  the  Mexican  government  ever  proposed  to  rescind  the  treaty,  and 
place  the  parties  in  the  same  relative  position  they  occupied  on  the  day  of  its 
execution  ?  Did  they  ever  offer  to  send  Santa  Ana  and  his  defeated  army 
back  to  San  Jacinto,  to  remain  as  General  Houston's  prisoners  until  the  Texan 
government  should  dispose  of  them  according  to  its  discretion,  under  the  laws 
of  nations  ?  But  I  must  return  from  this  digression  to  the  main  point  of  my 
argument.  I  was  proceeding  with  my  proof,  when  these  interruptions  com 
menced,  to  show  that  the  Rio  del  Norte  was  the  boundary  between  Texas  and 
Mexico,  and  has  been  so  claimed  on  the  one  side  and  recognized  on  the  other 
ever  since  the  battle  of  San  Jacinto.  I  have  already  referred  to  the  fact  that 
the  country  west  of  the  Nueces  had  her  soldiers  in  the  Texan  army  during 
the  campaigns  of  1835  and  1836,  and  that  the  treaty  of  peace  and  independ 
ence  between  Santa  Ana  and  the  Texan  government  recognized  the  Rio  del 
Norte  as  the  boundary.  I  have  also  referred  to  the  fact  that  the  Mexican 
army  was  removed  from  Texas,  in  pursuance  of  that  treaty,  to  the  west  bank 
of  that  stream.  I  am  informed  by  high  authority  that  General  Filisola  re 
ceived  instructions  from  the  authorities  in  Mexico,  who  were  exercising  the 
functions  of  government  in  Santa  Ana's  absence,  to  enter  into  any  arrange 
ment  with  the  Texan  government  which  should  be  necessary  to  save  the 
Mexican  army  from  destruction,  and  secure  its  safe  retreat  from  that  coun 
try  ;  and  that,  in  pursuance  of  those  instructions,  he  did  ratify  Santa  Ana's 
treaty  previous  to  marching  the  army  beyond  the  Rio  del  Norte.  My  friend 
from  Mississippi,  before  me  (Mr.  Davis),  who  has  investigated  the  subject,  as 
sures  me  that  such  is  the  fact.  My  own  recollection  accords  with  his  state 
ment  in  this  respect.  These  facts  clearly  show  that  Mexico,  at  that  time,  re 
garded  the  revolution  as  successful  as  far  as  the  Rio  del  Norte,  and  conse 
quently  that  the  river  must  necessarily  become  the  boundary  whenever  the  in 
dependence  of  the  new  republic  should  be  firmly  established.  Subsequent 
transactions  prove  that  the  two  countries  have  ever  since  acted  on  the  same 
supposition.  Texas  immediately  proceeded  to  form  a  Constitution  and  estab 
lish  a  permanent  government.  The  country  between  the  Nueces  and  the  Rio 
del  Norte  was  represented  in  the  convention  which  formed  her  Constitution  in 
1836.  James  Powers,  an  actual  resident  of  the  territory  now  in  dispute,  was 
elected  a  delegate  by  the  people  residing  there,  and  participated  in  the  pro 
ceedings  of  the  convention  as  one  of  its  members.  The  first  Congress  which 
assembled  under  the  Constitution  proceeded  to  define  the  boundaries  of  the 
republic,  to  establish  courts  of  jurisdiction,  and  the  exercise  of  all  the  powers 
of  sovereignty  over  the  whole  territory.  One  of  the  first  acts  of  that  Congress 
declares  the  Rio  del  Norte,  from  its  mouth  to  its  source,  to  be  the  boundary 
between  Texas  and  Mexico,  and  the  others  provide  for  the  exercise  of  juris 
diction.  Counties  were  established,  reaching  across  the  Nueces,  and  even  to 
the  Rio  del  Norte,  as  fast  as  the  tide  of  emigration  advanced  in  that  direc 
tion.  Corpus  Christi,  Point  Isabel,  and  General  Taylor's  camp,  opposite 
Matamoras,  are  all  within  the  county  of  San  Patricio,  in  the  State  of  Texas, 
according  to  our  recent  maps.  That  same  county,  from  the  day  of  its  for 
mation,  constituted  a  portion  of  one  of  the  congressional  districts,  and  also  of 
a  senatorial  district  in  the  Republic  of  Texas  ;  it  now  forms  a  portion,  if  not 
the  whole,  of  a  representative  district,  and  also  a  senatorial  district,  for  the 


THE   ANNEXATION    OF   TEXAS   AND   MEXICAN   WAR.  87 

election  of  representatives  and  senators  to  the  Texan  Legislature,  as  well  as 
a  congressional  district  for  the  election  of  a  representative  to  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States.  Colonel  Kinney,  who  emigrated  from  my  own  state, 
has  resided  in  that  country,  between  the  Nueces  and  the  Eio  del  Norte,  for 
many  years ;  has  represented  it  in  the  Congress  of  the  Republic  of  Texas, 
also  in  the  convention  which  formed  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Texas, 
and  now  represents  it  in  the  Texan  Senate.  I  know  not  what  stronger  evi 
dence  could  be  desired  that  the  country  in  question  was,  in  fact,  a  portion  of 
the  Republic  of  Texas,  and,  as  a  consequence,  is  now  a  portion  of  the  United 
States.  If  an  express  acknowledgment  by  Mexico  of  the  Rio  del  Norte  as  the 
boundary,  is  deemed  essential,  and  the  recognition  of  that  fact  in  Santa  Ana's 
treaty,  and  subsequently  by  Filisola,  is  not  considered  sufficient,  I  will  en 
deavor  to  furnish  further  and  more  recent  evidence,  which,  I  trust,  will  be 
satisfactory  on  that  point.  I  have  not  the  papers  to  which  I  shall  refer  be 
fore  me  at  this  moment,  but  they  are  of  such  general  notoriety  that  they  can 
not  fail  to  be  within  the  recollection  of  the  members  of  the  House  generally. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  when  we  were  discussing  the  propriety  and  expe 
diency  of  the  annexation  of  Texas  some  two  years  ago,  much  was  said  about 
an  armistice  entered  into  between  Mexico  and  Texas  for  the  suspension  of 
hostilities  for  a  limited  period.  Well,  that  armistice  was  agreed  to  by  the 
two  governments,  and  in  the  proclamation  announcing  the  fact  by  the  Mexi 
can  government,  the  Mexican  forces  were  required  to  retire  from  the  terri 
tory  of  Texas  to  the  west  side  of  the  Rio  del  Norte.  This  proclamation  was 
issued,  as  near  as  I  recollect,  in  1843  or  1844,  just  before  the  treaty  of  annex 
ation  was  signed  by  President  Tyler,  and  at  a  period  when  Mexico  had  had 
sufficient  time  to  recover  from  the  dizziness  of  the  shock  at  San  Jacinto,  and 
to  ascertain  to  what  extent  the  revolution  had  been  successful,  and  where  the 
true  boundary  was.  She  was  not  a  prisoner  of  war,  nor  in  duress,  at  the  time 
she  issued  this  proclamation.  It  was  her  own  deliberate  act  (so  far  as  delib 
eration  ever  attends  her  action),  done  of  her  own  volition.  In  that  proclama 
tion  she  clearly  recognizes  the  Rio  del  Norte  as  the  boundary,  and  that,  too, 
in  view  of  a  treaty  of  peace,  by  which  the  independence  of  Texas  was  to  be 
again  acknowledged. 

Mr.  Adams.  I  wish  to  ask  the  gentleman  from  Illinois  if  the  last  Congress 
did  not  pass  an  act  regulating  trade  and  commerce  to  the  foreign  province  of 
Santa  Fe  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  believe  the  last  Congress  did  pass  an  act  upon  that  sub 
ject,  and  I  will  remind  the  gentleman  that  the  present  Congress  has  passed 
an  act  extending  the  revenue  laws  of  the  United  States  over  the  country  be 
tween  the  Rio  del  Norte  and  the  Nueces,  and  providing  for  the  appointment 
of  custom-house  officers  to  reside  there.  As  near  as  I  recollect,  the  gentle 
man  from  Massachusetts  and  myself  voted  for  both  of  those  acts.  The  only 
difference  between  us,  in  this  respect,  was,  that  he,  being  a  little  more  zealous 
than  myself,  made  a  speech  for  the  last  one — for  the  act  extending  our  laws 
over  and  taking  legal  possession  of  the  very  country  where  General  Taylor's 
army  is  now  encamped,  and  which  he  now  asserts  to  belong  to  Mexico.  That 
act  passed  this  Congress  unanimously  at  the  present  session,  taking  legal  pos 
session  of  the  whole  country  in  dispute,  and  of  course  making  it  the  sworn 
duty  of  the  President  to  see  its  provisions  faithfully  executed.  In  the  name 
of  truth  and  justice,  I  ask  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  and  his  follow 
ers  in  this  crusade,  how  they  can  justify  it  to  their  consciences  to  denounce 
the  President  for  sending  the  army  to  protect  the  lives  of  our  citizens  there, 
and  defend  the  country  from  invasion,  after  they  had  voted  to  take  legal  pos 
session  by  the  extension  of  our  laws  ?  They  had  asserted  our  right  to  the 
country  by  a  solemn  act  of  Congress ;  had  erected  it  into  a  collection  dis 
trict,  and  the  Constitution  required  the  President  to  appoint  the  officers,  and 


88  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

see  the  laws  faithfully  executed.  He  had  done  so ;  and  for  this  simple  discharge 
of  a  duty  enjoined  upon  him  by  a  law  for  which  they  voted,  he  is  assailed,  in 
the  coarsest  terms  known  to  our  language,  as  having  committed  an  act  which 
is  unholy,  unrighteous,  and  damnable  !  But  I  feel  it  due  to  the  venerable 
gentleman  from  Massachusetts  to  respond  more  particularly  to  his  inquiry  in 
regard  to  the  act  of  the  last  Congress  regulating  commerce  and  trade  to  Santa 
Fe.  I  do  not  now  recollect  its  exact  provisions,  nor  is  it  important,  inas 
much  as  that  act  was  passed  before  Texas  was  annexed  to  this  Union.  Of 
course  Santa  Fe  was  foreign  to  us  at  that  time,  Avhether  it  belonged  to  Texas 
or  Mexico.  The  object  of  that  act  was  to  regulate  the  trade  across  our  west 
ern  frontier  between  us  and  foreign  countries.  Texas  was  then  foreign  to  us, 
but  is  no  longer  so  since  her  annexation  and  admission  into  the  Union.  Mr. 
Chairman,  I  believe  I  have  now  said  all  that  I  intended  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  that  the  Rio  del  Norte  was  the  western  boundary  of  the  Republic  of 
Texas.  How  far  I  have  succeeded  in  establishing  the  position,  I  leave  to  the 
House  and  the  country  to  determine.  If  that  was  the  boundary  of  the  Re 
public  of  Texas,  it  has,  of  course,  become  the  boundary  of  the  United  States 
by  virtue  of  the  acts  of  annexation  and  admission  into  the  Union.  I  will  not 
say  that  I  have  demonstrated  the  question  as  satisfactorily  as  the  distinguish 
ed  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  did  in  1819,  but  I  will  say  that  I  think  I 
am  safe  in  adopting  the  sentiment  which  he  then  expressed — that  our  title  to 
the  Rio  del  Norte  is  as  clear  as  to  the  island  of  New  Orleans. 

Mr.  Adams.  I  never  said  that  our  title  was  good  to  the  Rio  del  Norte  from 
its  mouth  to  its  source. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  know  nothing  of  the  gentleman's  mental  reservations.  If 
he  means,  by  his  denial,  to  place  the  whole  emphasis  on  the  qualification  that 
he  did  not  claim  that  river  as  the  boundary  '•'•from  its  mouth  to  its  source,"  I 
shall  not  dispute  with  him  on  that  point.  But  if  he  wishes  to  be  understood 
as  denying  that  he  ever  claimed  the  Rio  del  Norte,  in  general  terms,  as  our 
boundary  under  the  Louisiana  treaty,  I  can  furnish  him  with  an  official  docu 
ment,  over  his  own  signature,  which  he  will  find  very  embarrassing  and  ex 
ceedingly  difficult  to  explain.  I  allude  to  his  famous  dispatch  as  secretary 
of  state,  in  1819,  to  Don  Onis,  the  Spanish  minister.  I  am  not  certain  that 
I  can  prove  his  handwriting,  for  the  copy  I  have  in  my  possession  I  find 
printed  in  the  American  State  Papers,  published  by  order  of  Congress.  In 
that  paper  he  not  only  claimed  the  Rio  del  Norte  as  our  boundary,  but  he 
demonstrated  the  validity  of  the  claim  by  a  train  of  facts  and  arguments  which 
rivet  conviction  on  every  impartial  mind,  and  defy  refutation. 

Mr.  Adams.  I  wrote  that  dispatch  as  secretary  of  state,  and  endeavored 
to  make  out  the  best  case  I  could  for  my  own  country,  as  it  was  my  duty ; 
but  I  utterly  deny  that  I  claimed  the  Rio  del  Norte  as  our  boundary  in  its  full 
extent.  I  only  claimed  it  a  short  distance  up  the  river,  and  then  diverged 
northward  some  distance  from  the  stream. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Will  the  gentleman  specify  the  point  at  which  his  line  left 
the  river  ? 

Mr.  Adams.  I  never  designated  the  point. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Was  it  above  Matamoras  ? 

Mr.  Adams.  I  never  specified  any  particular  place. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  am  well  aware  that  the  gentleman  never  specified  any  point 
of  departure  for  his  northward  line,  which,  he  now  informs  us,  was  to  run  a 
part  of  the  way  on  the  east  side  of  that  river ;  for  he  claimed  the  river  as  the 
boundary  in  general  terms,  without  any  qualification.  But  his  present  ad 
mission  is  sufficient  for  my  purposes,  if  he  will  only  specify  the  point  from 
which  he  then  understood  or  now  understands  that  his  line  was  to  have  di 
verged  from  the  river.  I  have  heard  of  this  line  before,  and  know  with  rea 
sonable  certainty  its  point  of  departure.  It  followed  the  river  to  a  place  near 


THE   ANNEXATION    OF   TEXAS   AND   MEXICAN   WAK.  89 

the  highlands — certainly  more  than  one  hundred  miles  above  Matamoras ;  con 
sequently,  if  we  adopt  that  line  as  our  present  boundary,  it  will  give  us  Point 
Isabel  and  General  Taylor's  camp  opposite  Matamoras,  and  every  inch  of 
ground  upon  which  an  American  soldier  has  ever  placed  his  foot  since  the 
annexation  of  Texas  to  the  Union.  Hence  my  solicitude  to  extract  an  an 
swer  from  the  venerable  gentleman  to  my  interrogatory  whether  his  line  fol 
lowed  the  river  any  distance  above  Matamoras,  and  hence,  I  apprehend,  the 
cause  of  my  failure  to  procure  a  response  to  that  question.  If  he  had  re 
sponded  to  my  inquiry,  his  answer  would  have  furnished  a  triumphant  refu 
tation  of  all  the  charges  which  he  and  his  friends  have  made  against  the  Presi 
dent  for  ordering  the  army  of  occupation  to  its  present  position.  I  am  not 
now  to  be  diverted  from  the  real  point  in  controversy  by  a  discussion  of  the 
question  whether  the  Rio  del  Norte  was  the  boundary  to  its  source.  My 
present  object  is  to  repel  the  calumnies  which  have  been  urged  against  our 
government,  to  place  our  country  in  the  right  and  the  enemy  in  the  wrong, 
before  the  civilized  world,  according  to  the  truth  and  justice  of  the  case.  I 
have  exposed  these  calumnies  by  reference  to  the  acts  and  admissions  of  our 
accusers,  by  which  they  have  asserted  our  title  to  the  full  extent  that  we  have 
taken  possession.  I  have  shown  that  Texas  always  claimed  the  Rio  del  Norte 
as  her  boundary  during  the  existence  of  the  republic,  and  that  Mexico  on 
several  occasions  recognized  it  as  such  in  the  most  direct  and  solemn  manner. 
The  President  ordered  the  army  no  farther  than  Congi-ess  had  extended  our 
laws.  In  view  of  these  facts,  I  leave  it  to  the  candor  of  every  honest  man 
whether  the  executive  did  not  do  his  duty,  and  nothing  but  his  duty,  when 
he  ordered  the  army  to  the  Rio  del  Norte.  Should  he  have  folded  his  arms, 
and  allowed  our  citizens  to  be  murdered  and  our  territory  invaded  with  im 
punity  ?  have  we  not  forborne  to  act,  either  offensively  or  defensively,  until 
our  forbearance  is  construed  into  cowardice,  and  is  exciting  contempt  from 
those  toward  whom  we  have  exercised  our  magnanimity  ?  We  have  a  long 
list  of  grievances,  a  long  catalogue  of  wrongs  to  be  avenged.  Tho  war  has 
commenced;  blood  has  been  shed  ;  our  territory  invaded ;  all  by  the  act  of 
the  o:iemy. 

I  had  hoped  and  trusted  that  there  would  be  no  anti-war  party  after  war  was 
declared.  In  this  I  have  been  sadly  disappointed.  I  have  been  particularly 
mortified  to  see  one  with  whom  I  have  acted  on  the  Oregon  question,  who 
was  ready  to  plunge  the  country  into  immediate  war,  if  necessary,  to  main 
tain  the  rights  and  honor  of  the  country  in  that  direction,  now  arraying  him 
self  on  the  side  of  the  enemy  when  our  country  is  invaded  by  another  portion 
of  the  Union.  To  me,  our  country  and  all  its  parts  are  one  and  indivisible. 
I  would  rally  under  her  standard  in  the  defense  of  one  portion  as  soon  as  an- 
othcv — the  South  as  soon  as  the  North ;  for  Texas  as  soon  as  Oregon.  And 
I  will  here  do  my  Southern  friends  the  justice  to  say  that  I  firmly  believe, 
and  never  doubted  that,  if  war  had  arisen  out  of  the  Oregon  question,  when 
once  declared,  they  would  have  been  found  shoulder  to  shoulder  with  me  as 
firmly  as  I  shall  be  with  them  in  this  Mexican  war. 

Mr.  Adams.  I  thought  I  understood  the  gentleman  some  time  ago,  while 
standing  on  54°  40',  to  tell  his  Southern  friends  that  he  wanted  no  dodging 
on  the  Oregon  question. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  did  stand  on  54°  40' ;  I  stand  there  now,  and  never  in 
tend,  by  any  act  of  mine,  to  surrender  the  position.  I  am  as  ready  and  will 
ing  to  fight  for  54°  40'  as  for  the  Rio  del  Norte.  My  patriotism  is  not  of  that 
kind  which  would  induce  me  to  go  to  war  to  enlarge  one  section  of  the  Union 
out  of  mere  hatred  and  vengeance  toward  the  other.  I  have  no  personal  or 
political  griefs  resulting  from  the  past  to  embitter  my  feelings  and  inflame 
my  resentment  toward  any  section  of  our  country.  I  know  no  sections,  no 
divisions.  I  did  complain  of  a  few  of  nay  Southern  friends  on  the  Oregon 
question ;  did  tell  them  that  I  wished  to  see  no  dodging ;  endeavored  to  rally 


90  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

them  on  54°  40'  as  our  fighting  line,  regardless  of  consequences,  war  or  no 
war.  But,  while  they  declined  to  assume  this  position  in  a  time  of  peace,  they 
unanimously  avowed  their  determination  to  stand  by  the  country  the  moment 
war  was  declared.  But,  since  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  has  dragged 
the  Oregon  question  into  this  debate,  I  wish  to  call  his  attention  to  one  of  his 
wise  sayings  on  that  subject,  and  see  if  he  is  not  willing  to  apply  it  to  Texas 
as  well  as  Oregon,  to  Mexico  as  well  as  Great  Britain.  He  recalled  to  the 
mind  of  the  House  that  passage  of  history  in  which  the  great  Frederick  took 
military  possession  of  Silesia,  and  immediately  proposed  to  settle  the  question 
of  title  and  boundaries  by  negotiation.  During  the  Oregon  debate  he  avow 
ed  himself  in  favor  of  Frederick's  plan  for  the  settlement  of  that  question, 
"  Take  possession  first,  and  negotiate  afterward."  I  desire  to  know  why  the 
gentleman  is  not  willing  to  apply  this  principle  to  the  country  on  the  Rio  del 
Norte  as  well  as  Oregon  ?  According  to  his  own  showing,  that  is  precisely 
what  President  Polk  has  done.  He  has  taken  possession,  and  proposed  to 
negotiate.  In  this  respect  the  President  has  adopted  the  advice  of  the  gen 
tleman  from  Massachusetts,  and  followed  the  example  of  the  great  Frederick. 
The  only  difference  in  the  two  cases  is  that  the  President  was  maintaining  a 
legal  possession,  which  Congress  had  previously  taken  by  the  extension  of 
our  laws.  For  this  he  is  also  abused.  He  is  condemned  alike  for  using  the 
sword  and  the  olive  branch.  His  enemies  object  to  his  efforts  for  amicable 
adjustment  as  well  as  to  the  movements  of  the  army.  All  is  wrong  in  then- 
eyes.  Their  country  is  always  wrong,  and  its  enemies  right.  It  has  ever 
been  so.  It  was  so  in  the  last  war  with  Great  Britain.  Then  it  was  unbe 
coming  a  moral  and  religious  people  to  rejoice  at  the  success  of  American 
arms.  We  were  wrong,  in  their  estimation,  in  the  French  Indemnity  case, 
in  the  Florida  war,  in  all  the  Indian  wars,  and  now  in  the  Mexican  war. 
I  despair  of  ever  seeing  my  country  again  in  the  right,  if  they  are  to  be  the 
oracles. 

On  the  23d  of  February,  1848,  President  Pierce  communi 
cated  to  the  Senate  the  treaty  of  peace  Avith  Mexico,  negotiated 
at  Guadalupe  Hidalgo  by  1ST.  P.  Trist,  calling  attention  to  cer 
tain  provisions  in  it  which  were  highly  objectionable.  The 
debate  on  this  treaty  continued  until  March  10,  when,  it  hav 
ing  been  amended,  the  vote  was  taken,  "  Will  the  Senate  ad 
vise  and  consent  to  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  in  the  form  of 
this  resolution  ?"  and  the  vote  stood : 

Yeas— Ashley,  Atherton,  Bagby,  Bell,  Bradbury,  Bright,  Butler,  Calhoun, 
Cameron,  Cass,  Clarke,  Crittenden,  Davis  of  Massachusetts,  Davis  of  Missis 
sippi,  Dayton,  Dickinson,  Dix,  Downs,  Felch,  Foote,  Greene,  Hale,  Hanne- 
gan,  Hunter,  Johnson  of  Maryland,  Johnson  of  Louisiana,  Johnson  of  Geor 
gia,  Mangum,  Mason,  Miller,  Moor,  Niles,  Rusk,  Sevier,  Sturgeon,  Turney, 
Underwood,  Yulee— 38. 

Nays— Allen  of  Ohio,  Atchison  of  Missouri,  Badger  of  North  Carolina, 
Baldwin  of  Connecticut,  Benton  of  Missouri,  Berrien  of  Georgia,  Breese  of 
Illinois,  Corwin  of  Ohio,  Douglas  of  Illinois,  Lewis  of  Alabama,  Spruance 
of  Delaware,  Upham  of  Vermont,  Webster  of  Massachusetts,  Westcott  of 
Florida— 14.  Two  thirds  having  voted  in  the  affirmative,  the  treaty  was 
ratified. 

The  objections  to  the  treaty  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Douglas  are 
stated  in  the  extracts  from  his  speeches  in  the  various  part 
of  this  volume. 


POLICY  WITH   FOREIGN   NATIONS.  91 


CHAPTER  VI. 

POLICY  WITH   FOREIGN  NATIONS. 

SINCE  the  advent  of  Mr.  Douglas  upon  the  floors  of  Con 
gress,  he  has  always  taken  an  active  and  decided  part  in  the 
discussions  upon  the  proper  policy  to  be  adopted  and  main 
tained  by  the  United  States  with  respect  to  foreign  govern 
ments,  and  also  respecting  foreign  possessions  and  foreign 
domination  upon  the  American  continent.  While  he  has  al 
ways  been  a  strenuous  defender  of  the  Monroe  doctrine,  and 
a  zealous  advocate  of  its  rigid  maintenance  on  all  occasions  by 
the  United  States,  he  has  never  given  his  approval  to  any  of 
the  resolutions  or  propositions  which,  from  time  to  time,  have 
been  introduced  into  Congress,  with  a  view  of  having  a  declar 
ation  of  what  this  government  would  or  would  not  do  under 
certain  circumstances.  '  His  theory  is  that  the  declaration  by 
Mr.  Monroe  was  a  formal  notice  to  the  world  that  thenceforth 
there  was  to  be  no  new  establishment  of  power  or  acquisition 
of  territory  on  this  continent  by  any  European  nation.  By 
that  declaration  he  is  willing  to  stand.  It  is  broad,  explicit, 
and  covers  the  whole  subject.  As  to  all  other  questions,  he 
is  for  leaving  the  United  States  unfettered  by  declarations, 
pledges,  or  treaty  stipulations.  He  is  opposed  to  any  agree 
ment  between  the  United  States  and  any  European  power  by 
which  the  United  States  will  be  bound  to  do  or  not  to  do  cer 
tain  things  respecting  the  future  of  any  part  of  this  continent. 
He  is  for  leaving  the  government  perfectly  free  to  act  when 
the  occasion  arises,  just  as  the  circumstances  and  interests  of 
the  country  shall  at  the  time  require. 

When  Mr.  Douglas  entered  Congress  the  Oregon  boundary 
question  was  causing  considerable  agitation.  Pie  had  dis 
cussed  the  subject  often  at  home  in  Illinois.  It  was  no  new 
subject  for  him.  He  at  once  entered  largely  into  it.  As  the 
whole  controversy  has  long  since  been  finally  disposed  of  by 
treaty,  it  is  unnecessary  to  quote  in  a  work  of  this  kind  his 
speeches  on  the  question.  They  were  many  and  able,  and  dis 
played  a  research  for  which  those  who  were  strangers  to  him 


92  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

were  reluctant  to  give  him  credit.  He  was  for  54°  40',  and 
was  the  last  man  to  yield  in  the  memorable  congressional 
struggle  that  ensued  some  years  later.  He  had  declared  in 
his  first  speech  his  matured  and  deliberate  opinion  that  the 
American  title  was  clear  and  indisputable,  and  that  he  never 
would,  now  or  hereafter,  yield  up  an  inch  of  Oregon  to  Great 
Britain  or  any  other  government.  He  was  a  warm  supporter  of 
the  proposition  of  giving  the  notice  required  by  existing  treaty 
for  the  termination  of  the  joint  occupation  of  the  disputed  ter 
ritory.  He  advocated  -the  immediate  organization  of  a  terri 
torial  government  for  Oregon,  and  its  protection  by  an  ample 
military  force.  If  these  events,  if  this  just  enforcement  of 
American  rights  were  to  lead  to  a  war  with  Great  Britain,  he 
urged  the  strong  necessity  for  putting  the  country  in  a  state 
of  defense.  He  reviewed,  with  strong  and  emphatic  denuncia 
tions,  the  incessant  progress  made  by  Great  Britain  in  ex 
tending  and  maintaining  dominion  on  this  continent.  He  de 
scribed  her  power  at  the  north  and  on  the  lakes ;  her  posses 
sions  and  depots  in  the  Atlantic,  and  also  on  the  Pacific; 
pointed  out  her  intrigues  to  obtain  Texas  on  the  southwest — 
all  these  things  he  presented  with  great  force  and  power. 

On  the  3d  of  June,  1844,  he  made  a  speech  in  the  House 
contrasting  the  principles,  and  the  opinions  upon  all  pending 
national  questions,  of  Messrs.  Clay  and  Polk.  This  speech  was 
made  in  reply  to  one  delivered  by  Colonel  Hardin,  of  Illinois ; 
it  was  such  an  able  exposition  of  Democratic  principles  that 
it  was  the  campaign  speech  of  the  session,  was  printed  in  im 
mense  numbers,  and  was  sent  all  over  the  Union. 

THE    OREGON   BOUNDARY. 

The  following  extracts  from  speeches  delivered  by  him  on 
the  Oregon  question  of  that  day  will  serve  to  illustrate  his 
general  views : 

"It  therefore  becomes  us  to  put  this  nation  in  a  state  of  defense;  and, 
when  we  are  told  that  this  will  lead  to  war,  all  I  have  to  say  is  this,  violate 
no  treaty  stipulations,  nor  any  principle  of  the  law  of  nations ;  preserve  the 
honor  and  integrity  of  the  country,  but,  at  the  same  time,  assert  our  right 
to  the  last  inch,  and  then,  if  war  comes,  let  it  come.  We  may  regret,  the 
necessity  which  produced  it,  but  when  it  does  come,  I  would  administer  to 
our  citizens  Hannibal's  oath  of  eternal  enmity,  and  not  terminate  the  war 
until  the  question  was  settled  forever.  I  would  blot  out  the  lines  on  the  map 
which  now  mark  our  national  boundaries  on  this  continent,  and  make  the 
area  of  liberty  as  broad  as  the  continent  itself.  I  would  not  suffer  petty  rival 


POLICY   WITH    FOREIGN   NATIONS.  93 

republics  to  grow  up  here,  engendering  jealousy  of  each  other,  and  interfering 
with  each  other's  domestic  affairs,  and  continually  endangering  their  peace. 
I  do  not  wish  to  go  beyond  the  great  ocean— beyond  those  boundaries  which 
the  God  of  nature  has  marked  out,  I  would  limit  myself  only  by  that  bound 
ary  which  is  so  clearly  defined  by  nature." 

Again : 

"Our  federal  system  is  admirably  adapted  to  the  whole  continent;  and, 
while  I  would  not  violate  the  laws  of  nations,  nor  treaty  stipulations,  nor  in 
any  manner  tarnish  the  national  honor,  I  would  exert  all  legal  and  honor 
able  means  to  drive  Great  Britain  and  the  last  vestiges  of  royal  authority 
from  the  continent  of  North  America,  and  extend  the  limits  of  the  republic 
from  ocean  to  ocean.  I  would  make  this  an  ocean-bound  republic,  and  have 
no  more  disputes  about  boundaries,  or  'red  lines'  upon  the  maps." 

The  Baltimore 'Convention,  which  in  June,  1844,  nominated 
Mr.  Polk  for  the  presidency,  had  passed  the  following  resolu 
tion: 

"Resolved,  That  our  title  to  the  whole  of  the  territory  of  Oregon  is  clear 
and  unquestionable ;  that  no  portion  of  the  same  should  be  ceded  to  En 
gland  or  any  other  power ;  and  that  the  reoccupation  of  Oregon,  and  the 
reannexation  of  Texas  at  the  earliest  practicable  period,  are  great  American 
measures,  which  this  convention  recommends  to  the  ardent  support  of  the 
Democracy  of  the  Union." 

It  subsequently  became  a  subject  of  grave  discussion  and  of 
warm  controversy  whether  that  part  of  this  resolution  relating 
to  Oregon  was  or  was  not  a  part  of  the  Democratic  platform 
to  which  the  party  was  committed.  In  the  discussion  upon 
that  point,  Mr.  Douglas,  while  conceding  to  President  Polk  all 
possible  patriotism,  and  admitting  that  the  President  could  not 
have  been  aware,  on  his  accession  to  the  presidency,  that  the 
United  States  had  at  one  time  offered  to  compromise  on  49°, 
contended,  nevertheless,  that  all  Democrats  were  bound  by  the 
resolution  of  the  Baltimore  Convention. 

The  history  of  the  Oregon  boundary  question  is  one  of  the 
most  interesting  in  the  annals  of  our  government.  The  limits 
of  this  work  will  not  permit  it  to  be  given  in  full  here,  but  its 
progress  and  final  settlement  may  be  understood  from  the-fol- 
lowing  brief  sketch : 

The  proposition  to  give  the  notice  of  the  termination  of  the 
joint  occupancy  of  the  disputed  territory  was  renewed  during 
the  first  Congress  of  which  Mr.  Douglas  was  a  member,  and 
failed.  In  the  twenty -ninth  Congress  it  was  again  urged. 
This  was  the  first  Congress  following  Mr.  Polk's  inauguration. 
In  his  inaugural  address  the  President  had  used  these  memo 
rable  words : 


94  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

"  Nor  will  it  become  in  a  less  degree  my  duty  to  assert  and 
maintain,  by  all  constitutional  means,  the  right  of  the  United 
States  to  that  portion  of  our  territory  which  lies  beyond  the 
Rocky  Mountains.  Our  title  to  the  country  of  the  Oregon  is 
'  clear  and  unquestionable,'  and  already  are  our  people  prepar 
ing  to  perfect  that  title  by  occupying  it  with  their  wives  and 
children." 

By  the  3d  article  of  the  treaty  of  October,  1818,  it  had  been 
agreed  that  the  country  in  dispute  should  be  open  and  free  for 
ten  years  to  the  citizens  of  both  countries,  without  prejudice  to 
the  claims  of  either  country.  Several  subsequent  eiforts  were 
made  to  settle  the  matter  by  negotiation,  but  without  success. 
In  1827  a  convention  was  made,  by  which  it  was  agreed  to  con 
tinue  in  force  the  existing  stipulation  for  a  joint  occupancy, 
with  a  proviso  that  after  October,  1828,  either  of  the  contract 
ing  parties,  on  giving  due  notice  of  twelve  months  to  the  other 
contracting  party,  might  annul  and  abrogate  this  last  treaty, 
which  should,  from  and  after  the  expiration  of  the  twelve 
months'  notice,  be  abrogated  and  annulled.  The  United  States 
had,  in  all  the  negotiations,  offered  to  fix  the  boundary  upon 
the  parallel  of  49°  north  latitude,  but  the  offer  had  been  reject 
ed.  Great  Britain  offered  the  boundary  of  49°  to  its  intersec 
tion  with  the  northeastern  branch  of  the  Columbia  River,  and 
then  with  the  channel  of  said  river  to  the  ocean.  This  had 
been  rejected,  for  obvious  reasons,  by  the  United  States.  In 
1843  the  negotiations  had  been  renewed ;  and  in  August,  1844, 
pending  the  presidential  contest  in  which  Mr.  Polk  was  a  can 
didate,  Great  Britain,  through  her  minister  at  Washington, 
made  an  offer  having  for  its  main  feature  the  line  of  49°.  This 
was  rejected  by  Mr.  Tyler.  Upon  Mr.  Folk's  entering  the  of 
fice  of  President,  he  found  that  the  United  States,  from  1818 
up  to  a  very  recent  period,  had  offered  to  accept  the  parallel 
of  49°,  the  difference  between  the  two  governments  being  upon 
questions  involving  the  joint  right  of  navigation  of  the  Colum 
bia  River,  free  ports  upon  Vancouver's  Island,  and  other  points 
of  detail.  Mr.  Polk  again  offered  as  a  compromise  the  line  of 
49°,  omitting  what  had  been  tendered  by  his  predecessors — 
the  free  navigation  of  the  Columbia  River  south  of  that  line. 
He  was,  he  said,  unwilling  to  concede  to  Great  Britain  the  free 
navigation  of  any  river  in  the  United  States.  The  British  min 
ister  rejected  the  offer,  and  Mr.  Polk  then  asserted  the  Amer- 


POLICY  WITH   FOKEIGN   NATIONS.  95 

lean  claim  to  the  whole  territory.  He  recommended  that  the 
notice  be  given  for  the  termination  of  the  existing  convention. 

In  December,  1845,  Mr.  Douglas,  being  then  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Territories,  reported  "  a  bill  to  protect  the  rights 
of  American  settlers  in  the  Territory  of  Oregon  until  the  term 
ination  of  the  joint  occupancy  of  the  same." 

In  January,  1846,  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  in 
the  House  reported  a  joint  resolution  directing  the  President 
forthwith  to  give  the  twelve  months'  notice  for  the  abrogation 
of  the  treaty  of  1827. 

Upon  this  resolution  a  protracted  debate  took  place.  Mr. 
Douglas  advocated  its  passage.  He  took  the  high  ground 
that  the  American  title  to  the  whole  territory  was  indisputa 
ble,  and  he  was  for  resuming  its  exclusive  occupancy.  He 
denied  that  such  a  course  would  afford  cause  for  war ;  but  if 
it  was  used  as  a  pretext  for  war  by  Great  Britain,  he  would 
not  shrink  from  the  contest.  He  denied  that  Great  Britain 
had  the  slightest  legal  claim  to  any  part  of  the  northwestern 
coast,  and,  having  no  just  or  legal  claim,  he  was  for  excluding 
her  entirely  from  that  coast.  The  records  of  Congress  bear 
ample  evidence  of  the  interest  felt  by  the  country  upon  the 
question ;  and  in  the  broad  pages  which  contain  the  speeches, 
there  are  none  that  will  better  repay  the  time  given  to  their 
perusal  than  those  which  contain  the  speeches  of  Mr.  Douglas. 

The  excitement  following  these  measures,  and  up  to  the  day 
of  the  final  settlement  of  the  question  in  Congress,  was  intense, 
and  the  country  was  no  less  agitated.  Peace  or  war,  the  in 
tegrity  of  the  national  domain  or  its  severance,  were  the  themes 
of  daily  and  angry  discussions  in  all  parts  of  the  country. 
State  conventions  and  state  Legislatures  took  action  upon  the 
subject,  and  throughout  the  land  the  declaration  of  "fifty-four 
forty  or  fight"  was  growing  into  popular  favor,  and  was  fast 
becoming  an  expression  of  national  sentiment.  In  the  second 
week  of  February,  the  House,  by  resolution,  closed  the  debate 
in  Committee  of  the  Whole.  In  the  mean  time,  while  these 
propositions  were  pending  before  the  House,  the  British  min 
ister,  on  the  27th  of  December,  1845,  and  again  on  January 
16,  1846,  proposed  to  the  American  government,  1st,  to  sub 
mit  the  whole  question  of  an  equitable  division  of  Oregon  ter 
ritory  to  the  arbitration  of  some  friendly  sovereign  or  state ; 
and,  2d,  to  refer  the  question  of  title  in  either  of  the  two  pow- 


96  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

ers  to  the  whole  territory ;  the  arbitrator,  in  case  he  found  the 
title  to  the  whole  to  be  in  neither,  to  assign  to  each  such  por 
tions  as  he  might  think  it  entitled.  These  propositions  were 
promptly  rejected  by  Mr.  Polk,  who  declined  the  first  proposi 
tion  (among  other  reasons)  because  he  could  not  admit  Great 
Britain  to  have  any  claim  to  any  portion,  and,  secondly,  because 
he  did  not  think  the  territorial  rights  of  the  nation  a  proper 
subject  for  arbitration.  He  could  not  consent  to  any  measure 
which  would  withdraw  our  title  from  the  control  of  the  gov 
ernment  and  people  of  the  United  States,  and  place  it  within 
the  discretion  of  any  arbitrator,  no  matter  how  intelligent  and 
respectable. 

The  debate  closed  at  three  P.M.,  Mr.  Darragh  having  made 
the  last  speech,  and  then  ensued  a  scene  which  is  graphically 
described  in  the  Congressional  Globe.  The  question  pending 
was  on  the  joint  resolution  reported  by  the  Committee  on  For 
eign  Relations,  directing  that  the  President  forthwith  give  the 
notice.  The  first  amendment  proposed  was  to  strike  out  the 
word  "  forthwith,"  which  was  agreed  to  without  a  division. 
Tlie  next  amendment  proposed  was  to  authorize  the  President 
to  give  the  notice  whenever,  in  his  judgment,  the  public  inter 
est  required  it.  This  was  rejected;  ayes  56,  noes  136. 

Mr.  Dromgoole  submitted  a  substitute  for  the  resolution 
reported  by  the  committee.  It  authorized  the  President  to 
give  the  notice,  but  declared  that  nothing  in  such  action  was 
to  be  taken  as  interfering  with  negotiations  for  an  amicable 
settlement  of  the  controversy.  Under  the  rules  of  the  House, 
both  the  original  proposition  and  the  proposed  substitute  were 
open  for  amendment. 

Mr.  Dargan  moved  an  amendment,  providing,  1st,  that  the 
existing  differences  between  the  two  governments  w^ere  still 
the  subject  of  honorable  negotiation  and  compromise,  and 
should  be  so  adjusted ;  and,  2d,  that  the  boundary-line  between 
the  Canadas  and  the  United  States  should  be  extended  due 
west  to  the  coast  south  of  Frazer's  River,  and  thence  through 
the  centre  of  the  Straits  of  Fuca  to  the  Pacific,  giving  to  the 
United  States  all  the  territory  south,  and  Great  Britain  all 
lying  north  of  that  line.  The  first  clause  was  rejected — ayes 
96,  noes  102  ;  and  the  second  clause  by  an  overwhelming  vote. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Rockwell  moved  an  amendment  declaring  that,  as 
the  President  had  refused  to  accept  an  offer  to  refer  the  mat- 


POLICY   WITH    FOREIGN   NATIONS.  97 

ter  to  arbitration,  it  was  the  sense  of  the  House  that  the  Presi 
dent  should  be  permitted,  upon  his  own  responsibility,  to  take 
such  further  measures  as  he  might  deem  expedient.  This  was 
rejected. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Black  offered  as  an  amendment  for  the  substitute 
a  preamble  and  resolution,  that,  with  a  view  of  fixing  a  limit 
beyond  which  the  settlement  of  the  question  could  not  be  de 
layed,  and  at  the  same  time  affording  every  possible  opportu 
nity  for  a  just  and  final  settlement,  the  President  give  the 
twelve  months'  notice,  etc.  Rejected. 

Mr.  Ramsey  moved  to  amend  by  striking  out  all  after  the 
word  "  resolved,"  and  insert, 

"  That  the  Oregon  question  is  no  longer  a  subject  of  nego 
tiation  or  compromise." 

This  was  the  ultimate  ground  on  the  subject,  and  the  House 
voted  —  ayes  10,  noes  146.  The  proceedings  having  taken 
place  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  the  vote  by  tellers,  no  rec 
ord  is  preserved  of  the  names  of  members  voting  on  this  or 
any  other  of  the  propositions ;  but  Mr.  Wheeler,  in  his  History 
of  Congress,  writing  from  personal  knowledge,  gives  as  the 
names  of  the  ten  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  the  following: 


Alexander  Ramsey,  of  Pennsylvania. 
Archibald  Yell,  of  Arkansas. 
William  Sawyer,  of  Ohio. 
Cornelius  Darragh,  of  Pennsylvania. 
F.  G.  M'Connell,  of  Alabama. 


Joseph  B.  Hoge,  of  Illinois. 
Robert  Smith,  " 

Stephen  A.  Douglas,  " 
J.  A.  M 'demand,  " 
John  Wentworth,  " 


Finally,  after  the  rejection  of  a  large  number  of  amendments, 
the  committee,  by  a  vote  of  ayes  110,  noes  93,  adopted  the  fol 
lowing  :  "  Resolved,  by  the  Senate  and  .House  of  Representa 
tives,  etc.,  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  cause  notice 
to  be  given  to  the  government  of  Great  Britain  that  the  con 
vention  between  the  United  States  of  America  and  Great  Brit 
ain  concerning  the  territory  on  the  northwest  coast  of  Amer 
ica,  west  of  the  Stony  or  Rocky  Mountains,  of  tie  sixth  day 
of  August,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  twecty-seven,  sign 
ed  at  London,  shall  be  annulled  and  abrogated  twelve  months 
after  giving  said  notice. 

"Resolved,  That  nothing  herein  contained  is  intended  to  in 
terfere  with  the  right  and  discretion  of  the  proper  authorities 
of  the  two  contracting  parties  to  renew  or  pursue  negotiations 
for  an  amicable  settlement  of  the  controversy  respecting  the 
Oregon  Territory." 

E 


98  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

The  committee  rose  and  reported  the  resolution  to  the 
House.  The  House,  by  a  vote  of  yeas  163,  nays  54,  ordered 
it  to  be  engrossed,  and  then,  without  a  division,  the  resolution 
passed.  The  Senate  debated  this  resolution  from  February 
till  the  16th  of  April,  when  it  amended  it  by  substituting  an 
other  resolution  for  it.  The  House  refused  to  concur ;  a  com 
mittee  of  conference  was  appointed,  and  they  reported  a  reso 
lution  which  was  finally  agreed  to  by  both  houses.  It  author 
ized  the  President,  in  his  discretion,  to  give  the  notice,  which 
authority  he  promptly  exercised.  It  is  known  that  while  the 
Senate  and  House  were  thus  engaged,  an  active  correspondence 
was  going  on  between  the  representatives  of  the  two  govern 
ments,  which  finally  ended  in  a  formal  offer,  in  the  month  of 
June,  by  the  British  government  for  a  settlement  of  the  bound 
ary-line  upon  the  parallel  of  49°.  As  the  rejection  of  that  prop 
osition  involved  possibly  the  issue  of  peace  or  war,  the  Presi 
dent,  imitating  the  example  set  by  Washington  in  several  cases, 
submitted  the  offer  to  the  Senate  for  their  advice  upon  it. 
The  Senate,  by  a  vote  of  38  to  12,  advised  the  President  to  ac 
cept  the  proposal  of  the  British  government.  On  the  16th  of 
June  the  President  communicated  the  treaty  to  the  Senate ; 
and  on  the  18th,  the  Senate,  by  a  vote  of  yeas  41,  nays  14,  ad 
vised  and  consented  to  the  ratification  of  the  same.  Thus  end 
ed  the  exciting  Oregon  boundary  question,  in  the  discussions 
upon  which  Mr.  Douglas  earned  an  enviable  reputation  both 
as  an  orator  and  as  a  statesman. 

The  annexation  of  Texas  and  the  Mexican  war,  though  both 
questions  bearing  directly  upon  the  foreign  policy  of  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States,  are  subjects  so  intimately  con 
nected,  and  forming  a  distinct  chapter  of  the  history  of  the 
country  at  the  time,  will  be  found  under  a  separate  head. 

MONROE  DOCTRINE. CLAYTON-BULWER   TREATY. 

The  next  great  question  affecting  the  policy  of  the  United 
States  respecting  the  management  of  its  relations  with  foreign 
governments  was  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  more  familiarly 
known  as  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty.  The  proceedings 
of  the  Senate  (of  which  Mr.  Douglas  was  then  a  member)  upon 
this  treaty  were,  of  course,  secret,  and  the  record  since  made 
public  presents  the  statement  of  the  votes  of  senators,  and  the 
resolutions  of  the  Senate.  Involved  in  this  treaty  was  the  pol- 


POLICY   WITH   FOREIGN   NATIONS.  99 

icy  of  the  United  States  respecting  the  states  of  Central  Amer 
ica,  and  the  enforcement  of  what  is  known  historically  as  the 
Monroe  Doctrine. 

In  March,  1849,  General  Taylor  succeeded  Mr.  Polk  in  the 
presidency.  The  Hon.  John  M.  Clayton  succeeded  Mr.  Bu 
chanan  as  secretary  of  state.  During  the  summer  and  winter 
following  the  administration  undertook  to  establish  some  fixed 
relations  respecting  affairs  in  Central  America.  The  result 
was  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty.  This  convention  was 
communicated  to  the  Senate  by  a  special  message  on  the  22d 
of  April,  1850.  On  the  22d  of  May  following  it  was  ratified 
by  that  body  by  the  following  vote : 

Yeas  —  F.  Badger  of  North  Carolina,  Baldwin  of  Connecticut,  Bell  of 
Tennessee,  Berrien  of  Georgia,  Butler  of  South  Carolina,  Cass  of  Michigan, 
Chase  of  Ohio,  Clarke  of  Ehode  Island,  Clay  of  Kentucky,  Cooper  of  Pennsyl 
vania,  Corwin  of  Ohio,  Davis  of  Massachusetts,  Dawson  of  Georgia,  Dayton 
of  New  Jersey,  Dodge  of  Wisconsin,  Dodge  of  Iowa,  Downs  of  Louisiana, 
Felch  of  Michigan,  Foote  of  Mississippi,  Green  of  Rhode  Island,  Hale  of  New 
Hampshire,  Houston  of  Texas,  Hunter  of  Virginia,  Jones  of  Iowa,  King  of 
Alabama,  Mangum  of  North  Carolina,  Mason  of  Virginia,  Miller  of  New 
Jersey,  Morton  of  Florida,  Norris  of  New  Hampshire,  Pearce  of  Maryland, 
Pratt  of  Maryland,  Sebastian  of  Arkansas,  Seward  of  New  York,  Shields  of 
Illinois,  Smith  of  Connecticut,  Soule  of  Louisiana,  Spruance  of  Delaware, 
Sturgeon  of  Pennsylvania,  Underwood  of  Kentucky,  Wales  of  Delaware, 
and  Webster  of  Massachusetts — 42. 

Nays  —  Atchison  of  Missouri,  Borland  of  Arkansas,  Bright  of  Indiana, 
Clemens  of  Alabama,  Davis  of  Mississippi,  Dickinson  of  New  York,  Douglas 
of  Illinois,  Turney  of  Tennessee,  Walker  of  Wisconsin,  Whitcomb  of  Indiana, 
and  Yulee  of  Florida— 11. 

The  very  interesting  debates  were  not  published,  though  it 
was  well  known  at  the  time  that  Mr.  Douglas  had  taken  an 
active  part  in  opposition  to  the  ratification  of  the  treaty. 

At  the  session  of  1852-3,  General  Cass  called  the  attention 
of  the  Senate  to  certain  alleged  misunderstandings  between 
the  two  governments  respecting  the  meaning  of  certain  stipu 
lations  in  the  treaty.  A  debate  of  deep  interest  sprung  up, 
and  for  several  days  the  entire  subject  of  the  treaty  was  dis 
cussed.  Mr.  Clayton  was  then  at  his  residence  in  Delaware. 
So  deeply  did  he  consider  himself  involved  in  the  matters  agi 
tated  before  the  Senate,  that  he  addressed  a  long  letter  by  tele 
graph  to  the  National  Intelligencer.  The  Legislature  of  Dela 
ware  shortly  after  elected  him  to  a  seat  in  the  Senate.  On 
the  3d  of  March  Congress  adjourned ;  but,  as  is  usual  upon 
the  incoming  of  a  new  administration,  the  retiring  President 
called  a  special  session  of  the  Senate  to  consider  such  executive 


100  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

business  as  might  be  laid  before  them.  Mr.  Clayton  took  his 
seat  at  this  special  session,  and,  by  way  of  a  resolution  calling 
for  information,  he  renewed  the  controversy.  Upon  this  res 
olution,  the  whole  subject  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  and 
Central  American  affairs  was  discussed  in  a  debate  which  was 
protracted  until  late  in  April.  As  Mr.  Douglas  bore  a  con 
spicuous  part  in  the  debate  in  February,  as  well  as  at  the  spe 
cial  session,  his  speeches  on  these  occasions  are  quoted  from 
largely,  as  presenting  in  a  clear  and  comprehensive  form  his 
views  and  opinions  upon  the  important  subjects  embraced  in 
the  debates. 

On  the  14th  of  February,  in  the  Senate,  Mr.  Douglas  said: 

Thirty  years  ago,  Mr.  Monroe,  in  his  message  to  Congress,  made  a  mem 
orable  declaration  with  respect  to  European  colonization  upon  this  continent. 
That  declaration  has  ever  since  been  a  favorite  subject  of  eulogism  with  or 
ators,  politicians,  and  statesmen.  Recently  it  has  assumed  the  dignified  ap 
pellation  of  the  "  Monroe  doctrine"  It  seems  to  be  the  part  of  patriotism 
for  all  to  profess  that  doctrine,  while  our  government  has  scarcely  ever  failed 
to  repudiate  it  practically  whenever  an  opportunity  for  its  observance  has 
been  presented.  The  Oregon  treaty  is  a  noted  case  in  point.  Prior  to  that 
convention  there  was  no  British  colony  on  this  continent  west  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains.  The  Hudson's  Bay  Company  was  confined  by  its  charter  to  the 
shores  of  the  bay,  and  to  the  streams  flowing  into  it,  and  to  the  country 
drained  by  them.  The  western  boundary  of  Canada  was  hundreds  of  miles 
distant;  and  there  was  no  European  colony  to  be  found  in  all  that  region 
on  the  Pacific  coast  stretching  from  California  to  the  Russian  possessions. 
We  had  a  treaty  of  non-occupancy  with  Great  Britain,  by  the  provisions  of 
which  neither  party  was  to  be  permitted  to  colonize  or  assume  dominion  over 
any  portion  of  that  territory.  We  abrogated  that  treaty  of  non-occupancy, 
and  then  entered  into  a  convention,  by  the  terms  of  which  the  country  in 
question  was  divided  into  two  nearly  equal  parts,  by  the  parallel  of  the  forty- 
ninth  degree  of  latitude,  and  all  on  the  north  confirmed  to  Great  Britain, 
and  that  on  the  south  to  the  United  States.  By  that  treaty  Great  Britain 
consented  that  we  might  establish  territories  and  states  south  of  the  forty- 
ninth  parallel,  and  the  United  States  consented  that  Great  Britain  might,  to 
the  north  of  that  parallel,  establish  new  European  colonies,  in  open  and  fla 
grant  violation  of  the  Monroe  doctrine.  It  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  remind 
the  country,  and  especially  my  own  constituents,  with  what  energy  and  em 
phasis  I  protested  against  that  convention,  upon  the  ground  that  it  carried 
with  it  the  undisguised  repudiation  of  the  Monroe  declaration,  and  the  con 
sent  of  this  republic  that  new  British  colonies  might  be  established  on  that 
portion  of  the  North  American  continent  where  none  existed  before. 

Again:  as  late  as  1850  a  convention  was  entered  into  between  the  govern 
ment  of  the  United  Stat,es  and  Great  Britain,  called  the  Clayton  and  Bul- 
wer  treaty,  every  article  and  provision  of  which  is  predicated  upon  a  practical 
negation  and  repudiation  of  what  is  known  as  the  Monroe  doctrine,  as  I 
shall  conclusively  establish  before  I  close  these  remarks.  Since  the  ratifica 
tion  of  that  treaty  and  in  defiance  of  its  express  stipulations,  as  well  as  of 
the  Monroe  declaration,  Great  Britain  has  planted  a  new  colony  in  Central 
America,  known  as  the  colony  of  the  Bay  Islands.  In  view  of  this  fact,  and 
with  the  colony  of  the  Bay  Islands  in  his  mind's  eye,  the  venerable  senator 


POLICY  WITH   FOKEIGN  NATIONS.  101 

from  Michigan  lays  upon  the  table  of  the  Senate,  and  asks  us  to  affirm  by 
our  votes,  a  resolution  in  which  it  is  declared  that  "WHILE  EXISTING  RIGHTS 

SHOULD  BE  RESPECTED,  AND  WILL  BE  BY  THE  UNITED  STATES,"  the  Amer 
ican  continents  "ARE  HENCEFORTH  not  to  be  considered  as  subjects  for  FUTURE 
colonization  by  any  European  power,"  and  "that  no  FUTURE  European  colony 
or  dominion  shall,  with  their  consent,  be  planted  or  established  on  any  part  of  the 
North  American  continent." 

Now,  sir,  before  I  vote  for  this  resolution,  I  desire  to  understand,  with  clear 
ness  and  precision,  its  purport  and  meaning.  Existing  rights  are  to  be  re 
spected  !  What  is  to  be  the  construction  of  this  clause  ?  Is  it  that  all  colo 
nies  established  in  America  by  European  powers  prior  to  the  passage  of  this 
resolution  are  to  be  respected  by  the  United  States  as  "existing  rights?" 
Is  this  resolution  to  be  understood  as  a  formal  and  official  declaration,  by  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  of  our  acquiescence  in  the  seizure  of  the  isl 
ands  in  the  Bay  of  Honduras,  and  the  erection  of  them  into  a  new  British 
colony  ?  When,  in  connection  with  this  clause  respecting  "existing  rights," 
we  take  into  consideration  the  one  preceding  it,  in  which  it  is  declared  that 
"HENCEFORTH"  the  American  continents  are  not  open  to  European  coloni 
zation  ;  and  the  clause  immediately  succeeding  it,  which  says  that  "no  future 
European  colony  or  dominion"  shall,  with  our  consent,  be  planted  on  the  North 
American  continent,  who  can  doubt  that  Great  Britain  will  feel  herself  au 
thorized  to  construe  the  resolution  into  a  declaration  on  our  part  of  uncondi 
tional  acquiescence  in  her  right  to  hold  all  the  colonies  and  dependencies  she 
at  this  time  may  possess  in  America?  Is  the  Senate  of  the  United  States 
prepared  to  make  such  a  declaration  ?  Is  this  republic,  in  view  of  our  pro 
fessions  for  the  last  thirty  years,  and  of  our  present  and  prospective  position, 
prepared  to  submit  to  such  a  result  ?  If  we  are,  let  us  seal  our  lips,  and  talk 
no  more  about  European  colonization  upon  the  American  continents.  What 
is  to  redeem  our  declarations  upon  this  subject  in  the  future  from  utter  con 
tempt,  if  we  fail  to  vindicate  the  past,  and  meekly  submit  to  the  humiliation 
of  the  present  ?  With  an  avowed  policy,  of  thirty  years'  standing,  that  no 
future  European  colonization  is  to  be  permitted  in  America — affirmed  when 
there  was  no  opportunity  for  enforcing  it,  and  abandoned  whenever  a  case  was 
presented  for  carrying  it  into  practical  effect — is  it  now  proposed  to  beat  an 
other  retreat  under  cover  of  terrible  threats  of  awful  consequences  when  the 
offense  shall  be  repeated  ?  '•''Henceforth'"  no  "  future"  European  colony  is  to 
be  planted  in  America  "with  our  consent  /"  It  is  gratifying  to  learn  that  the 
United  States  are  never  going  to  "  consent"  to  the  repudiation  of  the  Monroe 
doctrine  again.  No  more  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaties ;  no  more  British 
"  alliances"  in  Central  America,  New  Granada,  or  Mexico  ;  no  more  resolu 
tions  of  oblivion  to  protect  "existing  rights!"  Let  England  tremble,  and 
Europe  take  warning,  if  the  offense  is  repeated.  "Should  the  attempt  be 
made,"  says  the  resolution,  "  it  will  leave  the  United  States  free  to  adopt  such 
measures  as  an  independent  nation  may  justly  adopt  in  defense  of  its  rights 
and  honor."  Are  not  the  United  States  now  free  to  adopt  such  measures  as 
an  independent  nation  may  justly  adopt  in  defense  of  its  rights  and  honor? 
Have  we  not  given  the  notice  ?  Is  not  thirty  years  sufficient  notice  ?  And 
has  it  not  been  repeated  within  the  last  eight  years,  and  yet  the  deed  is  done 
in  contempt  of  not  only  the  Monroe  doctrine,  but  of  solemn  treaty  stipula 
tions  ?  Will  you  ever  have  a  better  opportunity  to  establish  the  doctrine — a 
clearer  right  to  vindicate,  or  a  more  flagrant  wrong  to  redress  ?  If  you  do  not 
do  it  now,  your  "henceforth"  resolutions,  in  respect  to  "future"  attempts, 
may  as  well  be  dispensed  with.  I  have  no  resolutions  to  bring  forward  in  re 
lation  to  our  foreign  policy.  Circumstances  have  deprived  me  of  the  oppor 
tunity  or  disposition  to  participate  actively  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Senate 
this  session.  I  know  not  what  the  present  administration  has  done  or  is  do- 


102  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

ing  in  reference  to  this  question ;  and  I  am  willing  to  leave  the  incoming  ad 
ministration  free  to  assume  its  own  position,  and  to  take  the  initiation  unem 
barrassed  by  the  action  of  the  Senate. 

My  principal  object  in  addressing  the  Senate  to-day  is  to  avail  myself  of 
the  opportunity,  now  for  the  first  time  presented  by  the  removal  of  the  injunc 
tion  of  secrecy,  of  explaining  my  reasons  for  opposing  the  ratification  of  the 
Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty.  In  order  to  clearly  understand  the  question  in 
all  its  bearings,  it  is  necessary  to  advert  to  the  circumstances  under  which  it 
was  presented.  The  Oregon  boundary  had  been  established,  and  important 
interests  had  grown  up  in  that  territory ;  California  had  been  acquired,  and 
an  immense  commerce  had  sprung  into  existence ;  lines  of  steamers  had  been 
established  from  New  York  and  New  Orleans  to  Chagres,  and  from  Panama 
to  California  and  Oregon  ;  American  citizens  had  acquired  the  right  of  way, 
and  were  engaged  in  the  construction  of  a  railroad  across  the  Isthmus  of  Pa 
nama,  under  the  protection  of  treaty  stipulations  with  New  Granada ;  other 
American  citizens  had  secured  the  right  of  way,  and  were  preparing  to  con 
struct  a  canal  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific,  through  Lake  Nicaragua ;  and 
still  other  American  citizens  had  procured  the  right  of  way,  and  were  prepar 
ing  to  commence  the  construction  of  a  railroad,  under  a  grant  from  Mexico, 
across  the  Isthmus  of  Tehuantepec.  Thus  the  right  of  transit  on  all  the 
routes  across  the  isthmus  had  passed  into  American  hands,  and  were  within 
the  protection  and  control  of  the  American  government. 

In  view  of  this  state  of  things,  Mr.  Hise,  who  had  been  appointed  charge 
d'affaires,  under  the  administration  of  Mr.  Polk,  to  the  Central  American 
States,  negotiated  a  treaty  with  the  State  of  Nicaragua  which  secured  to  the 
United  States  forever  the  exclusive  privilege  of  opening  and  using  all  canals, 
railroads,  and  other  means  of  communication,  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pa 
cific,  through  the  territory  of  that  republic.  The  rights,  privileges,  and  im 
munities  conceded  by  that  treaty  were  all  that  any  American  could  have  de 
sired.  Its  provisions  are  presumed  to  be  within  the  knowledge  of  every  sen 
ator,  and  ought  to  be  familiar  to  the  people,  of  this  country.  The  grant  was 
to  the  United  States,  or  to  such  companies  as  should  be  organized  under  its 
authority,  or  received  under  its  protection.  The  privileges  were  exclusive  in 
their  terms  and  perpetual  in  their  tenure.  They  were  to  continue  forever  as 
inalienable  American  rights.  In  addition  to  the  privilege  of  constructing  and 
using  all  roads  and  canals  through  the  territory  of  Nicaragua,  Mr.  Hise's 
treaty  also  secured  to  the  United  States  the  right  to  erect  and  garrison  such 
fortifications  as  we  should  deem  necessary  at  the  termini  of  such  communi 
cation  on  each  ocean,  and  at  intermediate  points  along  the  lines  of  the  works, 
together  with  a  grant  of  lands  three  miles  square  at  the  termini  for  the  estab 
lishment  of  towns  with  free  ports  and  free  institutions.  I  do  not  deem  it  nec 
essary  to  detain  the  Senate  by  reading  the  provisions  of  this  treaty.  It  is 
published  in  the  document  I  hold  in  my  hand,  and  is  open  to  every  one  who 
chooses  to  examine  it.  It  was  submitted  to  the  Department  of  State  in 
Washington  on  the  15th  of  September,  1849,  but  never  sent  to  the  Senate  for 
ratification.  In  the  mean  time,  the  administration  of  General  Taylor  "had  su 
perseded  Mr.  Hise  by  the  appointment  of  another  representative  to  the  Cen 
tral  American  States,  and  instructed  him,  in  procuring  a  grant  for  a  canal,  to 
"CLAIM  NO  PECULIAR  PRIVILEGE — NO  EXCLUSIVE  RIGHT — NO  MONOPOLY  OP 
COMMERCIAL  INTERCOURSE." 

After  having  thus  instructed  Mr.  Squier  as  to  the  basis  of  the  treaty  which 
he  was  to  conclude,  Mr.  Clayton  seems  to  have  been  apprehensive  that  Mr. 
Hise  might  already  have  entered  into  a  convention  by  which  the  United  States 
had  secured  the  exclusive  and  perpetual  privilege,  and  in  order  to  guard 
against  such  a  contingency,  he  adds,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  same  letter  of 
instructions,  the  following : 


POLICY   WITH   FOREIGN   NATIONS.  103 

"If  a  charter  or  grant  of  the  right  of  way  shall  have  been  incautiously  or 
inconsiderately  made  before  your  arrival  in  that  country,  SEEK  to  have  it  prop 
erly  MODIFIED  TO  ANSWER  THE  ENDS  WE  HAVE  IN  VIEW." 

In  other  words,  if  Mr.  Hise  shall  have  made  a  treaty  by  which  he  may 
have  secured  all  the  desired  privileges  to  the  United  States  exclusively,  "  seek 
to  have  it  properly  modified,"  so  as  to  form  a  partnership  with  England  and 
other  monarchical  powers  of  Europe,  and  thus  lijy  the  foundation  for  an  alli 
ance  between  the  New  and  Old  World,  by  which  the  right  of  European  pow 
ers  to  intermeddle  with  the  affairs  of  American  states  will  be  established  and 
recognized.  With  these  instructions  in  his  pocket,  Mr.  Squier  arrived  in  Nic 
aragua,  and  before  he  reached  the  seat  of  government,  learned,  by  a  "  publi 
cation  in  the  Gazette  of  the  Isthmus,"  that  Mr.  Hise  was  already  negotiating 
a  treaty  in  respect  to  the  contemplated  canal.  Without  knowing  the  pro 
visions  of  the  treaty,  but  taking  it  for  granted  that  it  was  in  violation  of  the 
principles  of  General  Taylor's  administration,  as  set  forth  in  his  instructions, 
Mr.  Squier  immediately  dispatched  a  notice  to  the  government  of  Nicaragua, 
that ' '  Mr.  Hise  was  superseded  on  the  2d  of  April  last,  upon  which  date  I  (Mr. 
Squier)  received  my  commission  as  his  successor  ;"  "  that  Mr.  Hise  was  not 
empowered  to  enter  upon  any  negotiations  of  the  character  referred  to  ;"  and 
concluding  with  the  following  request : 

"  /  have,  therefore,  to  request  that  NO  ACTION  will  be  taken  by  the  government 
of  Nicaragua  upon  the  inchoate  treaty  which  may  have  been  negotiated  at  Gua 
temala,  but  that  the  SAME  MAY  BE  ALLOWED  TO  PASS  AS  AN  UNOFFICIAL  ACT." 

On  the  same  day,  Mr.  Squier,  with  commendable  promptness,  sends  a  let 
ter  to  Mr.  Clayton,  informing  our  government  of  what  he  had  learned  in  re 
spect  to  the  probable  conclusion  of  the  Hise  treaty,  and  expressing  his  appre 
hension  that  the  information  may  be  true,  and  adds : 

"If  so,  I  shall  be  placed  in  a  situation  of  some  embarrassment,  as  I  con 
ceive  that  Mr.  Hise  has  no  authority  for  the  step  he  has  taken,  and  is  certain 
ly  not  informed  of  the  PRESENT  VIEWS  AND  DESIRES  OF  OUR  GOVERNMENT." 

He  also  adds : 

"Under  these  circumstances,  I  have  addressed  a  note  [B]  to  the  govern 
ment  of  this  republic  (Nicaragua),  requesting  that  the  treaty  made  at  Gua 
temala  (if  any  such  exists)  may  be  allowed  to  pass  as  an  unofficial  act,  and  that 
new  negotiations  may  be  entered  upon  at  the  seat  of  government.'11 

Having  communicated  this  important  intelligence  to  his  own  government, 
Mr.  Squier  proceeded  on  his  journey  with  a  patriotic  zeal  equal  to  the  im 
portance  of  his  mission,  and  on  his  arrival  upon  the  theatre  of  his  labors 
opened  negotiations  for  a  new  treaty  in  accordance  with  the  "present  views 
and  desires  of  our  government,"  as  contained  in  his  instructions.  The  new 
treaty  was  concluded  on  the  3d  of  September,  1849,  and  transmitted  to  the 
government,  with  a  letter  explanatory  of  the  negotiation,  bearing  date  the  10th 
of  the  same  month.  Mr.  Squier's  treaty,  so  far  as  I  can  judge  from  the  pub 
lished  correspondence — for  the  injunction  of  secrecy  forbids  a  reference  to 
more  authentic  sources  of  information — is  in  strict  accordance  with  his  in 
structions,  and  entirely  free  from  any  odious  provisions  which  might  secure 
"peculiar  privileges  or  exclusive  rights"  to  the  United  States. 

These  two  treaties — the  one  negotiated  by  Mr.  Hise  and  the  other  by  Mr. 
Squier — were  in  the  State  Department  in*  this  city  when  Congress  met  in 
December,  1849.  The  administration  of  General  Taylor  was  at  liberty  to 
choose  between  them,  and  submit  the  one  or  the  other  to  the  Senate  for  rat 
ification.  The  Hise  treaty  was  suppressed,  without  giving  the  Senate  an  op 
portunity  of  ratifying  it  or  advising  its  rejection.  I  am  aware  that  a  single 
letter  published  in  this  document  of  correspondence  (House  of  Eepresentatives, 
Executive  Document,  No.  75)  gives  an  apparent  excuse — a  mere  pretext — for 
withholding  it  from  the  Senate.  I  allude  to  tho  letter  of  Mr.  Carache, 


104  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

charge*  d'affaires  from  Nicaragua,  to  Mr.  Clayton,  dated  Washington,  De^ 
cember  31,  1849,  that  the  Hise  treaty  "has  been,  as  is  publicly  and  univers^ 
ally  known,  disapproved  by  my  government,  and  that  my  government  desire?- 
the  ratification  of  the  treaty  signed  by  Mr.  Squier  on  the  3d  of  September 
last."  And  I  am  also  aware  that  Mr.  Clayton,  in  reply  to  this  letter,  stated 
to  Mr.  Carache  that  "if,  however,  as  you  state,  that  convention  has  not 
been  approved  by  your  government,  there  is  no  necessity  for  its  farther  con 
sideration  by  the  government  of  the  United  States."  From  this  it  would  seem 
that  Mr.  Clayton  desires  to  have  it  understood  that  the  failure  of  the  govern 
ment  of  Nicaragua  to  approve  the  Hise  treaty  was  the  reason  he  suppressed 
it,  and  refused  to  allow  the  Senate  an  opportunity  of  ratifying  it.  Is  that 
the  true  reason  ?  Why  did  the  government  of  Nicaragua  fail  to  approve  the 
Hise  treaty  ?  I  have  already  shown  conclusively  that  the  failure  to  approve 
on  the  part  of  the  government  of  Nicaragua  was  produced  by  the  represent 
ative  of  General  Taylor's  administration  in  Central  America,  acting  in  obe 
dience  to  the  imperative  instruction  of  the  State  Department  of  this  city,  over 
the  signature  of  Mr.  Clayton  himself.  Mr.  Clayton  had  instructed  Mr. 
Squier,  in  advance,  that  in  the  event  Mr.  Hise  should  have  made  a  treaty 
before  his  arrival  in  the  country,  he  (Mr.  Squier)  must  "seek  to  have  it  prop-' 
erly  modified  to  ANSWER  THE  ENDS  WE  HAVE  IN  VIEW."  Mr.  Squier  did 
"  seek"  to  have  it  so ' '  modified, "  and  with  great  difficulty,  as  the  correspond 
ence  proves,  succeeded  in  the  effort.  The  government  and  people  of  Nicara 
gua  were  anxious  to  grant  the  exclusive  and  perpetual  privilege  to  the  United 
States,  and  to  prevent  the  consummation  of  the  grand  European  alliance  and 
partnership.  Mr.  Squier,  in  his  letter  of  September  10,  1849,  communica 
ting  to  Mr.  Clayton  the  joyous  news  that  his  efforts  had  been  crowned  with 
complete  success,  says : 

"  SIR  :  /  have  the  satisfaction  of  informing  the  department  that  I  have  suc 
ceeded  in  accomplishing  THE  OBJECT  OF  MY  MISSION  TO  THIS  REPUBLIC." 

Then,  after  giving  an  exposition  of  the  main  provisions  of  his  treaty,  he  de 
tails  the  embarrassment  he  was  compelled  to  encounter  before  he  could  bring 
the  government  of  Nicaragua  to  terms.  Hear  him,  and  then  judge  whether 
the  failure  of  the  government  of  Nicaragua  to  approve  the  Hise  treaty  was 
the  reason  why  Mr.  Clayton  refused  to  submit  it  to  the  Senate  for  ratifica 
tion  ! 

"TlIE  PRINCIPAL  SOURCE  OP  EMBARRASSMENT  WAS   MR.  HlSE'S   SPECIAL 

CONVENTION,  which  had  raised  extravagant  hopes  of  a  relation  between  the 
United  States,  amounting  to  something  closer  than  exists  between  the  states 
of  our  confederacy.  However,  as  matters  have  been  finally  arranged,  they 
are  all  the  better  for  this  republic,  and  quite  as  favorable  to  the  United 
States." 

So  it  seems  that  the  Hise  treaty  was  "the  principal  source  of  embarrass 
ment"  to  the  consummation  of  the  European  partnership.  It  "had  raised  ex 
travagant  hopes"  on  the  part  of  the  government  and- people  of  Nicaragua  of 
a  "  closer"  relation  to  the  United  States,  which  it  was  difficult  to  induce  them 
to  relinquish.  It  required  all  the  zeal,  skill,  and  tact  of  Mr.  Squier  to  accom 
plish  so  great  a  feat.  " Finally"  the  matter  was  "  arranged,"  and  the  result 
communicated  to  the  department  with  "satisfaction,"  in  these  memorable 
words,  which  must  have  carried  great  joy  to  Mr.  Clayton's  heart :  "I  have 
succeeded  in  accomplishing  the  objects  of  my  mission  to  this  republic."  Re 
joice,  all  ye  advocates  of  European  intervention  in  the  affairs  of  the  American 
continent !  The  Hise  treaty  is  dead !  The  principal  source  of  embarrass 
ment  is  removed !  Nicaragua  has  failed  to  approve  the  special  convention 
granting  peculiar  privileges  and  exclusive  rights  to  the  United  States !  This 
failure  has  enabled  us  "properly  to  modify  the  grant,  so  as  to  answer  the 
ends  we  have  in  view,"  and,  at  the  same  time,  relieves  Mr.  Clayton  from  the 


POLICY   WITH   FOREIGN   NATIONS.  105 

imminent  risk  of  submitting  these  peculiar  privileges  to  the  Senate,  where 
there  was  great  danger  of  their  being  accepted.  Nicaragua  has  at  last  con 
sented  !  Her  appeals  to  the  United  States  for  mediation  or  protection  against 
British  aggression  being  unheeded — her  letters  to  our  government  remaining 
unanswered — their  receipt  not  even  acknowledged — her  hopes  of  a  closer  re 
lation  to  this  Union  blasted — the  Monroe  doctrine  abandoned — the  Mosquito 
kingdom,  under  the  British  protectorate,  rapidly  absorbing  her  territory,  she 
sinks  in  despair,  and  yields  herself  to  the  European  partnership  which  was 
about  to  be  established  over  all  Central  America  by  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer 
treaty ! 

Now,  sir,  I  repeat  that  these  two  treaties — the  one  negotiated  by  Mr.  Hise 
and  the  other  by  Mr.  Squier,  the  first  conceding  peculiar  privileges  and  ex 
clusive  and  perpetual  rights  to  the  United  States,  the  second  admitting  of  a 
partnei-ship  in  these  privileges  with  European  powers,  Mr.  Clayton  suppress 
ed  the  first,  and  sent  the  second  to  the  Senate  for  ratification,  and  imme 
diately  opened  negotiations  with  the  British  minister,  which  resulted  in  what 
is  known  as  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty.  In  stating  my  objections  to 
this  treaty,  I  shall  not  become  a  party  to  the  protracted  controversy  respect 
ing  its  true  meaning  and  construction,  which  has  engaged  so  much  of  the 
attention  of  this  session.  I  leave  that  in  the  hands  of  those  who  conducted 
the  negotiation  and  procured  its  ratification.  That  is  their  own  quarrel, 
with  which  I  have  no  disposition  to  interfere.  Establish  which  construction 
you  please — that  contended  for  by  the  secretary  of  state  who  signed  it,  or 
the  one  insisted  upon  by  the  venerable  senator  from  Michigan,  and  those 
who  acted  in  concert  with  him  in  ratifying  it — neither  obviates  any  one  of 
my  objections. 

In  the  first  place,  I  was  unwilling  to  enter  into  treaty  stipulations  with 
Great  Britain  or  any  other  European  power  in  respect  to  the  American  con 
tinent,  by  the  terms  of  which  we  should  pledge  the  faith  of  this  republic  not 
to  do  in  all  coming  time  that  which  in  the  progress  of  events  our  interests, 
duty,  and  even  safety  may  compel  us  to  do.  I  have  already  said,  and  now 
repeat,  that  every  article,  clause,  and  provision  of  that  treaty  is  predicated 
upon  a  virtual  negation  and  repudiation  of  the  Monroe  declaration  in  relation 
to  European  colonization  on  this  continent.  The  article  inviting  any  power 
on  earth  with  which  England  and  the  United  States  are  on  terms  of  friendly 
intercourse  to  enter  into  similar  stipulations,  and  which  pledges  the  good 
offices  of  each,  when  requested  by  the  other,  to  aid  in  the  new  negotiations 
with  the  other  Central  American  states,  and  which  pledges  the  good  offices 
of  all  the  nations  entering  into  the  "  alliance"  to  settle  disputes  between  the 
states  and  governments  of  Central  America,  not  only  recognizes  the  right  of 
European  powers  to  interfere  with  the  affairs  of  the  American  continent,  but 
invites  the  exercise  of  such  right,  and  makes  it  obligatory  to  do  so  in  certain 
cases.  It  establishes,  in  terms,  an  alliance  between  the  contracting  parties, 
and  invites  all  other  nations  to  become  parties  to  it.  I  was  opposed  also  to 
the  clause  which  stipulates  that  neither  Great  Britain  nor  the  United  States 
will  ever  occupy,  colonize,  or  exercise  dominion  over  any  portion  of  Nicara 
gua,  Costa  Rica,  the  Mosquito  Coast,  or  any  part  of  Central  America.  I  did 
not  desire  then,  nor  do  I  now,  to  annex  any  portion  of  that  country  to  this 
Union.  I  do  not  know  that  the  time  will  ever  come  in  my  day  when  I  would 
be  willing  to  do  so.  Yet  I  was  unwilling  to  give  the  pledge  that  neither  we 
nor  our  successors  ever  would.  This  is  an  age  of  rapid  movements  and  great 
changes.  How  long  is  it  since  those  who  made  this  treaty  would  have  told 
us  that  the  time  would  never  come  when  we  would  want  California  or  any 
portion  of  the  Pacific  coast  ?  California  being  a  state  of  the  Union,  who  is 
authorized  to  say  that  the  time  will  not  arrive  when  our  interests  and  safety 
may  require  us  to  possess  some  portion  of  Central  America,  which  lies  half 

E  2 


106  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

way  between  our  Atlantic  and  Pacific  possessions,  and  embraces  the  great 
water  lines  of  commerce  between  the  two  oceans  ?  I  think  it  the  wiser  and 
safer  policy  to  hold  the  control  of  our  own  action,  and  leave  those  who  are 
to  come  after  us  untrammeled  and  free  to  do  whatever  they  may  deem  their 
duty,  when  the  time  shall  arrive.  They  will  have  a  better  right  to  determine 
for  themselves  when  the  necessity  for  action  may  arise,  than  we  have  now  to 
prescribe  the  line  of  duty  for  them.  I  was  equally  opposed  to  that  other 
clause  in  the  same  article,  which  stipulates  that  neither  party  will  ever  fortify 
any  portion  of  Central  America,  or  any  place  commanding  the  entrance  to 
the  canal,  or  in  the  vicinity  thereof.  It  is  not  reciprocal,  for  the  reason  that 
it  leaves  the  island  of  Jamaica,  a  British  colony,  strongly  fortified,  the  near 
est  military  and  naval  station  to  the  line  of  the  canal.  It  is,  therefore, 
equivalent  to  a  stipulation  that  the  United  States  shall  never  have  or  main 
tain  any  fortification  in  the  vicinity  of,  or  commanding  the  line  of  navigation 
and  commerce  through  said  canal,  while  England  may  keep  and  maintain 
those  she  now  has. 

I  was  not  satisfied  with  the  clause  in  relation  to  the  British  protectorate 
over  the  Mosquito  Coast.  It  is  equivocal  in  terms,  and  no  man  can  say 
with  certainty  whether  the  true  construction  excludes  the  protectorate  from 
the  continent  or  recognizes  its  rightful  existence,  and  imposes  restraints  upon 
its  use  and  exercise.  Equivocal  terms  in  treaties  are  easily  understood  where 
the  stipulations  are  between  a  strong  power  on  the  one  hand  and  a  feeble 
one  on  the  other.  The  stronger  enforces  its  own  construction,  and  the 
weaker  has  no  alternative  but  reluctant  acquiescence.  In  this  case  neither 
party  may  be  willing  to  recognize  the  potential  right  of  the  other  to  prescribe 
and  enforce  a  construction  of  the  equivocal  terms  which  shall  enable  it  to  ap 
propriate  to  itself  all  the  advantages  in  question.  It  would  seem  that  our 
own  government  have  not  ventured  to  insist  upon  a  rigid  enforcement  of  the 
provisions  of  the  treaty  in  relation  to  the  British  protectorate  over  the  Mos 
quito  Coast,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  was  explained  and  understood  when 
submitted  to  the  Senate  for  ratification.  Has  the  British  protectorate  disap 
peared  from  Central  America  ?  I  am  not  referring  to  the  matters  in  contro 
versy  between  certain  senators  who  supported  the  treaty  and  Mr.  Clayton,  in 
respect  to  the  Balize  settlement.  I  allude  to  the  Mosquito  Coast,  which,  by 
name  and  in  terms,  is  expressly  made  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  treaty. 
Has  the  British  protectorate  disappeared  from  that  part  of  Central  America  ? 
Have  the  British  authorities  retired  from  the  port  of  San  Juan,  and  thereby 
recognized  the  right  of  American  citizens  and  vessels  to  arrive  and  depart 
free  of  hinderance  and  molestation  ?  Is  it  not  well  known  that  the  protector 
ate  is  continued  and  maintained  with  increased  vigor  and  boldness  ?  Is  not 
the  British  consul  at  San  Juan  now  actively  engaged  in  disposing  of  the  soil, 
conveying  town  lots  and  lands,  and  exercising  the  highest  functions  of  sover 
eignty  under  the  pretext  of  protecting  the  rights  of  the  Mosquito  king? 
These  things  are  being  done  openly  and  without  disguise,  and  are  well  known 
to  the  world.  Can  any  senator  inform  me  whether  this  government  has 
taken  the  slightest  notice  of  these  transactions  ?  Has  our  government  en 
tered  its  protest  against  these  infractions  of  the  treaty,  or  demanded  a  specific 
compliance  with  our  understanding  of  its  terms?  How  long  are  we  to  wait 
for  Great  Britain  to  abandon  her  occupancy  and  withdraw  her  machinery  of 
government  ?  Nearly  three  years  have  elapsed  since  we  were  boastingly  told 
that  by  the  provisions  of  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty  Great  Britain  was 
expelled  from  Central  America.  Shall  we  wait  patiently  until  our  silence 
shall  be  construed  into  acquiescence  in  her  right  to  remain  and  maintain 
her  possessions  ? 

But  there  was  another  insuperable  objection  to  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer 
treaty  which  increases,  enlarges,  and  extends  the  force  of  all  the  obnoxious 


POLICY   WITH   FOKEIGN   NATIONS.  107 

provisions  I  have  pointed  out.  I  allude  to  the  article  in  which  it  is  pro 
vided  that 

"  The  government  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  having  not  only 
desired  to  accomplish  a  particular  object,  BUT  ALSO  TO  ESTABLISH  A  GENERAL 

PRINCIPLE,  THEY  HEREBY  AGREE  TO  EXTEND  THEIR  PROTECTION,  BY  TREATY 
STIPULATIONS,  TO  ANY  OTHER  PRACTICABLE  COMMUNICATIONS,  whether  by  Canal 

or  railway,  across  the  isthmus  which  connects  North  and  South  America,  and 
especially  to  the  interoceanic  communications,  should  the  same  prove  to  be  prac 
ticable,  whether  by  canal  or  railway,  which  are  now  proposed  to  be  established  by 
the  way  O/TEHUANTEPEC  OR  PANAMA." 

The  "particular  object"  which  the  parties  had  in  view  being  thus  accom 
plished — the  Hise  treaty  defeated,  the  exclusive  privilege  to  the  United  States 
surrendered  and  abandoned,  and  the  European  partnership  established — yet 
they  were  not  satisfied.  They  were  not  content  to  "accomplish  a  particu 
lar  object, "  but  desired  to  "ESTABLISH  A  GENERAL  PRINCIPLE  !"  That  which, 
by  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  was  particular  and  local  to  the  five  states  of  Cen 
tral  America,  is,  in  this  article,  extended  to  Mexico  on  the  north,  and  to 
New  Granada  on  the  south,  and  declared  to  be  a  general  principle  by  which 
any  and  all  other  practicable  routes  of  communication  across  the  isthmus  be 
tween  North  and  South  America  are  to  be  governed  and  protected  by  the 
allied  powers.  New  and  additional  treaty  stipulations  are  to  be  entered  into 
for  this  purpose,  and  the  net-work  which  had  been  prepared  and  spread  over 
all  Central  America  is  to  be  extended  far  enough  into  Mexico  and  New 
Granada  to  cover  all  the  lines  of  communication,  whether  by  railway  or  canal, 
and  especially  to  include  Tehuantepec  and  Panama.  When  it  is  remember 
ed  that  the  treaty  in  terms  establishes  an  alliance  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain,  and  engages  to  invite  all  other  powers,  with  which  either 
is  on  terms  of  friendly  intercourse,  to  become  parties  to  its  provisions,  it  will 
be  seen  that  this  article  seeks  to  make  the  principles  of  the  Clayton  and  Bul- 
wer  treaty  the  law  of  nations  in  respect  to  American  affairs.  The  general 
principle  is  established ;  the  right  of  European  powers  to  intervene  in  the  af 
fairs  of  American  states  is  recognized ;  the  propriety  of  the  exercise  of  that 
right  is  acknowledged ;  and  the  extent  to  which  the  allied  powers  shall  carry 
their  protection,  and  the  limits  within  which  they  shall  confine  their  opera 
tions,  are  subject  to  treaty  stipulations  in  the  future. 

When  the  American  continent  shall  have  passed  under  the  protectorate 
of  the  allied  powers,  and  her  future  made  dependent  upon  treaty  stipulations 
for  carrying  into  effect  the  object  of  the  alliance,  Europe  will  no  longer  have 
cause  for  serious  apprehensions  at  the  rapid  growth,  expansion,  and  develop 
ment  of  our  federal  Union.  She  will  then  console  herself  that  limits  have 
been  set  and  barriers  erected  beyond  which  the  territories  of  this  republic 
can  never  extend,  nor  its  principles  prevail.  In  confirmation  of  this  view, 
she  will  find  additional  jcause  for  congratulation  when  she  looks  into  the  treaty 
of  peace  with  Mexico,  and  there  sees  the  sacred  honor  of  this  republic  irrev 
ocably  pledged  that  we  will  never,  in  all  coming  time,  annex  any  more  Mex 
ican  territory  in  the  mode  in  which  Texas  was  acquired.  The  fifth  article 
contains  the  following  extraordinary  provision : 

"The  boundary-line  established  by  this  article  shall  be  religiously  respect 
ed  by  each  of  the  two  republics,  and  no  change  shall  ever  be  made  therein 
except  by  the  express  and  free  consent  of  both  nations,  lawfully  given  by  the 
general  government  of  each,  in  conformity  with  its  own  Constitution." 

One  would  naturally  suppose  that,  for  all  the  ordinary  purposes  of  a  treaty 
of  peace,  the  first  clause  of  the  paragraph  would  have  been  entirely  sufficient. 
It  declares  that  "  the  boundary-line  established  by  this  article  shall  be  relig 
iously  respected  by  each  of  the  two  republics."  Why  depart  from  the  usual 
course  of  proceeding  in  such  cases,  and  add,  that  "  no  change  shall  ever  b« 


108  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

made  therein,  except  ly  the  express  and  free  consent  of  both  nations,  LAWFULLY 
given  by  the  GENERAL  government  of  each,  in  conformity  with  its  OWN  CONSTI 
TUTION."  What  is  the  meaning  of  this  peculiar  phraseology?  The  history 
of  Texas  furnishes  the  key  by  which  the  hidden  meaning  can  be  unlocked. 
The  Sabine  was  once  the  boundary  between  the  republics  of  the  United  States 
and  Mexico.  By  the  revolt  of  Texas  and  the  establishment  of  her  inde 
pendence,  and  the  acknowledgment  thereof  by  the  great  powers  of  the  world, 
and, her  annexation  to  the  United  States,  the  boundary  between  the  two  re 
publics  was  "changed"  from  the  Sabine  to  the  Rio  Grande  without  "the  ex 
press  and  free  consent  of  both  nations,  lawfully  given  by  the  general  govern 
ment  of  each,  in  conformity  with  its  own  Constitution."  Mexico  regarded 
that  change  a  just  cause  of  war,  and  accordingly  invaded  Texas  with  a  view 
to  the  recovery  of  the  lost  territory.  A  protracted  war  ensued,  in  which 
thousands  of  lives  were  lost,  and  millions  of  money  expended,  when  peace  is 
concluded  upon  the  express  condition  that  the  treaty  should  contain  an  open 
and  frank  avowal  that  the  United  States  has  been  wrong  in  the  causes  of  the 
war,  by  the  pledge  of  her  honor  never  to  repeat  the  act  which  led  to  hostilities. 
Wherever  you  turn  your  eye,  whether  to  your  own  record,  to  the  statute- 
books,  to  the  history  of  this  country  or  of  Mexico,  or  to  the  diplomatic  his 
tory  of  the  world,  this  humiliating  and  degrading  acknowledgment  stares  you 
in  the  face,  as  a  monument  of  your  own  creation,  to  the  dishonor  of  our  com 
mon  country.  Well  do  I  remember  the  determined  and  protracted  efforts  of 
the  minority  to  expunge  this  odious  clause  from  the  treaty  before  its  ratifica 
tion,  and  how,  on  the  4th  of  March,  1848,  we  were  voted  down  by  forty-two 
to  eleven.  The  stain  which  that  clause  fastened  upon  the  history  of  our  coun 
try  was  not  the  only  objection  I  urged  to  its  retention  in  the  treaty.  It  vio 
lated  a  great  principle  of  public  policy  in  relation  to  this  continent.  It 
pledges  the  faith  of  this  republic  that  our  successors  shall  not  do  that  which 
duty  to  the  interests  and  honor  of  the  country,  in  the  progress  of  events,  may 
compel  them  to  do.  I  do  not  meditate  or  look  with  favor  upon  any  aggres 
sion  upon  Mexico.  I  do  not  desire,  at  this  time,  to  annex  any  portion  of  her 
territory  to  this  Union;  nor  am  I  prepared  to  say  that  the  time  will  ever 
come,  in  my  day,  when  I  would  be  willing  to  sanction  such  a  proposition. 
But  who  can  say  that,  amid  the  general  wreck  and  demoralization  in  Mex 
ico,  a  state  of  things  may  not  arise  in  which  a  just  regard  for  our  own  rights 
and  safety,  and  for  the  sake  of  humanity  and  civilization,  may  render  it  im 
perative  for  us  to  do  that  which  was  done  in  the  case  of  Texas,  and  thereby 
change  the  boundary  between  the  two  republics,  without  the  free  consent  of 
the  general  government  of  Mexico,  lawfully  given  in  conformity  with  her  Con 
stitution?  Recent  events  in  Sonora,  Chihuahua,  and  Tamauh'pas  do  not  es 
tablish  the  wisdom  and  propriety  of  that  line  of  policy  which  ties  our  hands 
in  advance,  and  deprives  the  government  of  the  right,  in  the  future,  of  doing 
whatever  duty  and  honor  may  require,  when  the  necessity  for  action  may 
arrive. 

Mr.  President,  one  of  the  resolutions  under  consideration  makes  a  decla 
ration  in  relation  to  the  island  of  Cuba,  which  requires  a  passing  notice.  It 
is  in  the  following  words : 

"That,  while  the  United  States  disclaim  any  designs  upon  the  island  of 
Cuba,  inconsistent  with  the  laws  of  nations  and  with  their  duties  to  Spain, 
they  consider  it  due  to  the  vast  importance  of  the  subject  to  make  known,  in 
this  solemn  manner,  that  they  should  view  all  efforts  on  the  part  of  any  other 
power  to  procure  possession,  whether  peaceably  or  forcibly,  of  that  island, 
which,  as  a  naval  or  military  position,  must,  under  circumstances  easy  to  be 
foreseen,  become  dangerous  to  their  southern  coast,  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico, 
and  to  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi,  as  unfriendly  acts,  directed  against  them, 
to  be  resisted  by  all  the  means  in  their  power." 


POLICY   WITH    FOREIGN   NATIONS.  109 

That  we  would  resist  any  attempt  to  transfer  the  island  of  Cuba  to  any  Eu 
ropean  power,  either  with  or  without  the  consent  of  Spain,  there  is,  I  trust, 
no  question  in  the  mind  of  any  American,  and  the  fact  is  as  well  known  to 
Europe  as  it  is  to  our  own  country.  That  the  United  States  do  not  meditate 
any  designs  upon  the  island  inconsistent  with  the  laws  of  nations,  and  with 
their  duties  to  Spain,  has  been  demonstrated  to  the  world  in  a  manner  that 
forbids  the  necessity  for  a  disclaimer  of  unworthy  and  perfidious  purposes  on 
our  part.  The  resolutions  convey,  beneath  this  disclaimer,  the  implication 
that  our  character  is  subject  to  suspicion  upon  that  point.  Shall  we  let  the 
presumption  go  abroad  that  a  disclaimer  of  an  act  of  dishonesty,  and  perfidy, 
and  infamy  has  become  necessary  upon  our  part  ?  Sir,  is  there  any  thing  in 
the  history  of  our  relations  with  foreign  nations,  or  in  respect  to  Cuba,  that 
should  subject  our  country  to  such  injurious  imputations?  When  has  our 
government  failed  to  perform  its  whole  duty  as  a  neutral  power  in  respect  to 
Cuba  ?  The  only  complaint  has  been,  that  in  its  great  anxiety  to  preserve  in 
good  faith  its  neutral  relations,  it  has  permitted  treaty  stipulations  with  Spain, 
providing  for  the  protection  of  our  citizens,  to  be  wantonly  and  flagrantly  vi 
olated.  No  suspicion  that  this  government  has  been  wanting  in  energy  and 
fidelity  in  the  enforcement  of  our  laws  has  been  entertained  in  any  quarter. 
It  was  the  excessive  energy  and  severity  with  which  the  duty  was  performed 
that  has  provoked  the  disapprobation  of  some  portion  of  the  American  people. 

Sir,  what  right  has  Great  Britain  to  call  upon  the  United  States,  as  she 
did  in  a  late  application,  to  enter  into  a  negotiation  to  guarantee  Cuba  to 
Spain  ?  Such  a  step  might  have  been  necessary  on  the  part  of  England  in 
order  to  satisfy  Spain  that  she  has  abandoned  the  policy  which  for  centuries 
has  marked  her  colonial  history  with  plunder  and  rapine.  Why  does  not 
England  first  restore  to  Spain  the  island  of  Jamaica,  by  the  seizure  and  pos- 
ssesion  of  which  she  is  enabled  to  overlook  Cuba,  while  it  gives  her  the  com 
mand  of  the  entrance  of  the  proposed  Nicaragua  canal  ?  Why  does  she  not 
restore  to  old  Spain  Gibi'altar,  which,  from  proximity  and  geographical  posi 
tion,  naturally  belongs  to  her,  and  is  essential  to  her  safety  ?  Why  does  she 
not  restore  the  colonial  possessions  which  she  has  stretched  all  over  the  world, 
commanding  every  important  military  and  naval  station,  both  upon  land  and 
water  ?  Why  does  she  not  restore  them  to  their  original  owners,  from  whom 
she  obtained  them  by  fraud  and  violence  ?  Why  docs  she  not  do  these  things 
before  she  calls  upon  us  to  enter  into  stipulations  that  we  will  not  rob  Spain 
of  the  island  of  Cuba  ? 

The  whole  system  of  European  colonization  rests  upon  seizure,  violence, 
and  fraud.  European  powers  hold  nearly  all  their  colonies  by  the  one  or 
the  other  of  these  tenures.  They  can  show  no  other  evidence,  no  other  mu 
niment  of  title.  What  is  there  in  the  histoiy  of  the  United  States  that  re 
quires  us  to  make  any  such  disclaimer?  We  have  never  acquired  one  inch 
of  territory,  except  by  honest  purchase  and  full  payment  of  the  consideration. 
We  have  never  seized  any  Spanish  or  other  European  colony.  We  have 
never  invaded  the  rights  of  other  nations.  We  do  not  hold  in  our  hand  the 
results  of  rapine,  violence,  war,  and  fraud  for  centuries,  and  then  prate  about 
honesty,  and  propose  to  honest  people  to  enter  into  guarantees  that  they  will 
not  rob  their  neighbors.  *  *  *  * 

I  confess  I  have  not  formed  a  very  high  appreciation  of  the  value  of  these 
disclaimers  of  all  intention  of  committing  crimes  against  our  neighbors.  I 
do  not  think  I  should  deem  my  house  any  more  secure  in  the  night  in  conse 
quence  of  the  thief  having  pledged  his  honor  not  to  steal  my  property.  If  I 
am  surrounded  by  honest  men,  there  is  no  necessity  for  the  "friendly  assu 
rance  ;"  and  if  by  rogues,  it  would  not  relieve  my  apprehensions  or  afford 
much  security  to  my  rights.  I  am  unwilling,  therefore,  to  make  any  dis 
claimer  as  to  our  purposes  upon  Cuba,  or  to  give  any  pledge  in  respect  to 


110  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUG-LAS. 

existing  rights  upon  this  continent.  The  nations  of  Europe  have  no  right  to 
call  upon  us  for  a  disclaimer  of  the  one,  or  for  a  pledge  to  protect  the  other. 
It  is  true,  British  newspapers  are  in  the  habit  of  calumniating  the  people  of 
the  United  States  as  a  set  of  marauders  upon  the  territorial  rights  of  our 
neighbors.  It  is  also  true  that,  for  party  purposes,  some  portion  of  the  press 
of  this  country  is  in  the  habit  of  attributing  such  sentiments  to  some  of  our 
public  men ;  but  it  is  not  true,  so  far  as  I  know,  that  any  one  man  in  either 
house  of  Congress  does  entertain,  or  has  ever  entertained  or  avowed,  a  senti 
ment  that  justifies  such  an  imputation.  I  am  unwilling,  therefore,  to  coun 
tenance  the  vile  slander  by  voting  for  a  resolution  which  by  imputation  con 
tains  so  base  an  insinuation.  Perhaps  I  may  as  well  speak  plainly.  I  feel 
that  there  may  be  a  lurking  insinuation  in  these  two  clauses,  having  a  little 
bearing  toward  an  individual  of  about  my  proportions.  It  is  the  vocation  of 
some  partisan  presses  and  personal  organs  to  denounce  and  stigmatize  a  ceT- 
tain  class  of  politicians,  by  attributing  to  them  unworthy  and  disreputable 
purposes,  under  the  cognomen  of  "Young  America."  It  is  their  amiable 
custom,  I  believe,  when  they  come  to  individualize,  to  point  to  me  as  the  one 
most  worthy  to  bear  the  appellation.  I  have  never  either  assumed  or  dis 
claimed  it.  I  have  never  befoi'e  alluded  to  it,  and  should  not  on  the  present 
occasion,  had  it  not  been  introduced  into  the  discussions  of  the  Senate  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  leave  the  impression  that  I  evaded  it  if  I  failed  to  no 
tice  it.  I  am  aware  that  the  senator  who  the  other  day  directed  so  large  a 
portion  of  his  speech  against  the  supposed  doctrines  of  "  YOUNG  AMERICA" 
had  no  reference  to  myself  in  that  part  of  his  speech,  and  that  the  only  allu 
sion  he  made  to  me  was  kind  and  complimentary.  So  far  as  I  am  concerned, 
and  those  who  harmonize  with  me  in  sentiment  and  action,  the  votes  to  which 
I  have  referred,  and  the  reasons  I  have  given  in  support  of  them,  constitute 
the  only  profession  of  faith  I  deem  it  necessary  to  make  on  this  subject.  I 
am  willing  to  compare  votes  and  acts,  principles  and  professions,  with  any 
senator  who  chooses  to  assail  me.  ^  I  yield  to  none  in  strict  observance  of  the 
laws  of  nations  and  treaty  stipulations.  I  may  not  have  been  willing  blindly 
or  recklessly  to  pledge  the  faith  of  the  republic  for  all  time  on  points  where, 
in  the  nature  of  things,  it  was  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  pledge  could 
be  preserved.  I  may  have  deemed  it  wise  and  prudent  to  hold  the  control 
of  our  own  nation,  and  leave  our  successors  free,  according  to  their  own  sense 
of  duty  under  the  circumstances  which  may  then  exist. 

CUBA. 

Now,  sir,  a  few  words  with  regard  to  the  island  of  Cuba.  If  any  man  de 
sires  my  opinions  upon  that  question,  he  can  learn  them  very  easily.  They 
have  been  proclaimed  frequently  for  the  last  nine  years,  and  still  remain  un 
changed.  I  have  often  said,  and  now  repeat  that,  so  long  as  the  island  of 
Cuba  is  content  to  remain  loyal  to  the  crown  of  Spain,  be  it  so.  I  have  no 
desire,  no  wish  to  disturb  that  relation.  I  have  always  said,  and  now  repeat 
that,  whenever  the  people  of  the  island  of  Cuba  shall  show  themselves  worthy 
of  freedom  by  asserting  and  maintaining  their  independence  and  establishing 
republican  institutions,  my  heart,  my  sympathies,  my  prayers  are  with  them 
for  the  accomplishment  of  the  object.  I  have  often  said,  and  now  repeat  that, 
when  that  independence  shall  have  been  established,  if  it  shall  be  necessary 
to  their  interest  or  safety  to  apply  as  Texas  did  for  annexation,  I  shall  be 
ready  to  do  by  them  as  we  did  by  Texas,  and  receive  them  into  the  Union. 
I  have  said,  and  now  repeat  that,  whenever  Spain  shall  come  to  the  conclu 
sion  that  she  can  not  much  longer  maintain  her  dominion  over  the  island, 
and  that  it  is  better  for  her  to  transfer  it  to  us  upon  fair  and  reasonable  terms, 
I  am  one  of  those  who  would  be  ready  to  accept  the  transfer.  I  have  said, 


TEEEITOEIAL   EXPANSION. FOREIGN   AGGKESSIONS.          Ill 

and  now  repeat  that,  whenever  Spain  shall  refuse  to  make  such  transfer  to 
us,  and  shall  make  it  to  England  or  any  other  European  power,  I  would  be 
among  those  who  would  be  in  favor  of  taking  possession  of  the  island,  and 
resisting  such  transfer  at  all  hazards. 

Thus  far  I  have  often  gone ;  thus  far  I  now  go.  These  are  my  individual 
opinions ;  not  of  much  consequence,  I  admit,  but  any  one  who  desires  to  know 
them  is  welcome  to  them.  But  it  is  one  thing  for  me  to  entertain  these  indi 
vidual  sentiments,  and  it  is  another  and  very  different  thing  to  pledge  forever 
and  unalterably  the  policy  of  this  government  in  a  particular  channel,  in  de 
fiance  of  any  change  in  the  circumstances  that  may  hereafter  take  place.  I 
do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  affirm  by  a  resolution,  in  the  name  of  the  repub 
lic,  every  opinion  that  I  may  entertain  and  be  willing  to  act  upon  as  the  rep 
resentative  of  a  local  constituency.  I  am  not,  therefore,  prepared  to  say  that 
it  is  wise  policy  to  make  any  declaration  upon  the  subject  of  the  island  of 
Cuba.  Circumstances  not  within  our  control,  and  originating  in  causes  be 
yond  our  reach,  may  precipitate  a  state  of  things  that  would  change  our  ac 
tion  and  reverse  our  whole  line  of  policy.  Cuba,  in  the  existing  position  of 
affairs,  does  not  present  a  practical  issue.  All  that  we  may  say  or  do  is 
merely  speculative,  and  dependent  upon  contingencies  that  may  never  happen. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

TEEEITOEIAL   EXPANSION. — FOEEIGN   AGGEESSIONS. 

THE  Senate  reassembled  on  the  4th  of  March.  Mr.  Clayton 
submitted  resolutions  calling  for  certain  information  respect 
ing  negotiations  with  Costa  Rica,  Honduras,  etc.  On  the  8th 
and  9th  of  March  he  addressed  the  Senate  on  the  general  sub 
ject  of  Central  American  affairs,  and  criticised  with  severity 
the  remarks  made  by  Senators  Mason,  Cass,  and  Douglas  dur 
ing  the  debate  in  February.  On  the  10th  of  March  Mr.  Doug 
las  replied  in  an  argument  of  rare  ability  and  searching  power. 
He  reviewed  the  entire  history  of  the  negotiations  respecting 
Central  American  affairs  during  the  Taylor  administration.  A 
few  extracts  from  the  closing  portion  of  his  speech  will  furnish 
most  clearly  his  views  upon  the  great  question  of  extending 
the  territorial  limits  of  the  United  States.  His  views  upon 
that  point  are  stated  with  great  precision  and  force.  He  said : 

"But,  sir,  I  do  not  wish  to  detain  the  Senate  upon  this  point,  or  to  pro 
long  the  discussion.  I  have  a  word  or  two  to  say  in  reply  to  the  remarks  of 
the  senator  from  Delaware  upon  so  much  of  my  speech  as  related  to  the 
pledge  in  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty  never  to  annex  any  portion  of  that 
country.  I  objected  to  that  clause  in  the  treaty  upon  the  ground  that  I  was 
unwilling  to  enter  into  a  treaty  stipulation  with  any  European  power  in  re 
spect  to  this  continent,  that  we  would  not  do,  in  the  future,  whatever  our 
duty,  interest,  honor,  and  safety  might  require  in  the  course  of  events.  The 
senator  infers  that  I  desire  to  annex  Central  America  because  I  was  unwill 
ing  to  give  a  pledge  that  we  never  would  do  it.  He  reminded  me  that  there 


112  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

was  a  clause  in  the  treaty  with  Mexico  containing  the  stipulation  that,  in 
certain  contingencies,  we  would  never  annex  any  portion  of  that  country. 
Sir,  it  was  unnecessary  that  he  should  remind  me  of  that  provision.  He  has 
not  forgotten  how  hard  I  struggled  to  get  that  clause  out  of  the  treaty,  where 
it  was  retained  in  opposition  to  my  vote.  Had  the  senator  given  me  his  aid 
then  to  defeat  that  provision  in  the  Mexican  treaty,  I  would  be  better  satis 
fied  now  with  his  excuse  for  having  inserted  a  still  stronger  pledge  in  his 
treaty.  But,  having  advocated  that  pledge  then,  he  should  not  attempt  to 
avoid  the  responsibility  of  his  own  act  by  citing  it  as  a  precedent.  I  was  un 
willing  to  bind  ourselves  by  treaty  for  all  time  to  come  never  to  annex  any 
more  territory.  I  am  content  for  the  present  with  the  territory  we  have.  I 
do  not  wish  to  annex  any  portion  of  Mexico  now.  I  did  not  wish  to  annex 
any  part  of  Central  America  then,  nor  do  I  at  this  time. 

"But  I  can  not  close  my  eyes  to  the  history  of  this  country  for  the  last 
half  century.  Fifty  years  ago  the  question  was  being  debated  in  this  Senate 
whether  it  was  wise  or  not  to  acquire  any  territory  on  the  west  bank  of  the 
Mississippi,  and  it  was  then  contended  that  we  could  never,  with  safety,  ex 
tend  beyond  that  river.  It  was  at  that  time  seriously  considered  whether  the 
Alleghany  Mountains  should  not  be  the  barrier  beyond  which  we  should  nev 
er  pass.  At  a  subsequent  date,  after  we  had  acquired  Louisiana  and  Mori- 
da,  more  liberal  views  began  to  prevail,  and  it  was  thought  that  perhaps  we 
might  venture  to  establish  one  tier  of  states  west  of  the  Mississippi ;  but,  in 
order  to  prevent  the  sad  calamity  of  an  undue  expansion  of  our  territory,  the 
policy  was  adopted  of  establishing  an  Indian  Territory,  with  titles  in  perpetu 
ity,  all  along  the  western  borders  of  those  states,  so  that  no  more  new  states 
could  possibly  be  created  in  that  direction.  That  barrier  could  not  arrest  the 
onward  progress  of  our  people.  They  burst  through  it,  and  passed  the  Rocky 
Mountains,  and  were  only  arrested  by  the  waters  of  the  Pacific.  Who,  then, 
is  prepared  to  say  that  in  the  progress  of  events,  having  met  with  the  barrier 
of  the  ocean  in  our  western  course,  we  may  not  be  compelled  to  turn  to  the 
north  and  to  the  south  for  an  outlet  ?"  *  *  *  * 

"You  may  make  as  many  treaties  as  you  please  to  fetter  the  limbs  of  this 
giant  republic,  and  she  will  burst  them  all  from  her,  and  her  course  will  be 
onward  to  a  limit  which  I  will  not  venture  to  prescribe.  Why  the  necessity 
of  pledging  your  faith  that  you  will  never  annex  any  more  of  Mexico  ?  Do 
you  not  know  that  you  will  be  compelled  to  do  it ;  that  you  can  not  help  it ; 
that  your  treaty  will  not  prevent  it,  and  that  the  only  effect  it  will  have  will 
be  to  enable  European  powers  to  accuse  us  of  bad  faith  when  the  act  is  done, 
and  associate  American  faith  and  Punic  faith  as  synonymous  terms  ?  What 
is  the  use  of  your  guarantee  that  you  will  never  erect  any  fortifications  in 
Central  America ;  never  annex,  occupy,  or  colonize  any  portion  of  that  coun 
try  ?  How  do  you  know  that  you  can  avoid  doing  it?  If  you  make  the  ca 
nal,  I  ask  you  if  American  citizens  will  not  settle  along  its  line ;  whether 
they  will  not  build  up  towns  at  each  terminus ;  whether  they  will  not  spread 
over  that  country,  and  convert  it  into  an  American  state ;  whether  Amer 
ican  principles  and  American  institutions  will  not  be  firmly  planted  there  ? 
And  I  ask  you  how  many  years  you  think  will  pass  away  before  you  will 
find  the  same  necessity  to  extend  your  laws  over  your  own  kindred  that  you 
found  in  the  case  of  Texas  ?  How  long  will  it  be  before  that  day  arrives  ? 
It  may  not  occur  in  the  senator's  day,  nor  mine.  But,  so  certain  as  this  re 
public  exists,  so  certain  as  we  remain  a  united  people,  so  certain  as  the  laws 
of  progress  which  have  raised  us  from  a  mere  handful  to  a  mighty  nation 
shall  continue  to  govern  our  action,  just  so  certain  are  these  events  to  be 
worked  out,  and  you  will  be  compelled  to  extend  your  protection  in  that  di 
rection. 

"  Sir,  I  am  not  desirous  of  hastening  the  day.     I  am  not  impatient  of  the 


TERRITORIAL   EXPANSION. — FOREIGN   AGGRESSIONS.       113 

time  when  it  shall  be  realized.  I  do  not  wish  to  give  any  additional  impulse 
to  our  progress.  We  are  going  fast  enough.  But  I  wish  our  policy,  our 
laws,  our  institutions,  should  keep  up  with  the  advance  in  science,  in  the  me 
chanic  arts,  in  agriculture,  and  in  every  thing  that  tends  to  make  us  a  great 
and  powerful  nation.  Let  us  look  the  future  in  the  face,  and  let  us  prepare 
to  meet  that  which  can  not  be  avoided.  Hence  I  was  unwilling  to  adopt 
that  clause  in  the  treaty  guaranteeing  that  neither  party  would  ever  annex, 
colonize,  or  occupy  any  portion  of  Central  America.  I  was  opposed  to  it  for 
another  reason.  It  was  not  reciprocal.  Great  Britain  had  possession  of  the 
island  of  Jamaica.  Jamaica  was  the  nearest  armed  and  fortified  point  to 
the  terminus  of  the  canal.  Jamaica  at  present  commands  the  entrance  of 
the  canal ;  and  all  that  Great  Britain  desired  was,  inasmuch  as  she  had  pos 
session  of  the  only  place  commanding  the  canal,  to  procure  a  stipulation  that 
no  other  power  would  ever  erect  a  fortification  nearer  its  terminus.  That 
stipulation  is  equivalent  to  an  agreement  that  England  may  fortify,  but  that 
we  never  shall.  Sir,  when  you  look  at  the  whole  history  of  that  question, 
you  will  see  that  England,  with  her  far-seeing,  sagacious  policy,  has  attempt 
ed  to  circumscribe,  and  restrict,  and  restrain  the  free  action  of  this  govern 
ment.  When  was  it  that  Great  Britain  seized  the  possession  of  the  terminus 
of  this  canal  ?  Just  six  days  after  the  signing  of  the  treaty  which  secured  to 
us  California !  The  moment  England  saw  that,  by  the  pending  negotiations 
with  Mexico,  California  was  to  be  acquired,  she  collected  her  fleets  and  made 
preparations  for  the  seizure  of  the  port  of  San  Juan,  in  order  that  she  might 
be  gate-keeper  on  the  public  highway  to  our  new  possessions  on  the  Pacific. 
Within  six  days  from  the  time  we  signed  the  treaty,  England  seized  by  force 
and  violence  the  very  point  now  in  controversy.  Is  not  this  fact  indicative 
of  her  motives  ?  Is  it  not  clear  that  her  object  was  to  obstruct  our  passage  to 
our  new  possessions  ?  Hence  I  do  not  sympathize  with  that  feeling  which 
the  senator  expressed  yesterday,  that  it  was  a  pity  to  have  a  difference  with 
a  nation  so  FRIENDLY  TO  us  AS  ENGLAND.  Sir,  I  do  not  see  the  evidence  of 
her  friendship.  It  is  not  in  the  nature  of  things  that  she  can  be  our  friend. 
It  is  impossible  she  can  love  us.  I  do  not  blame  her  for  not  loving  us.  Sir, 
we  have  wounded  her  vanity  and  humbled  her  pride.  She  can  never  forgive 
us.  But  for  us,  she  would  be  the  first  power  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  But 
for  us,  she  would  have  the  prospect  of  maintaining  that  proud  position  which 
she  held  for  so  long  a  period.  We  are  in  her  way.  She  is  jealous  of  us, 
and  jealousy  forbids  the  idea  of  friendship.  England  does  not  love  us ;  she 
can  not  love  us ;  and  we  do  not  love  her  either.  We  have  some  things  in 
the  past  to  remember  that  are  not  agreeable.  She  has  more  in  the  present 
to  humiliate  her  that  she  can  not  forgive. 

"I  do  not  wish  to  administer  to  the  feeling  of  jealousy  and  rivalry  that 
exists  between  us  and  England.  I  wish  to  soften  and  allay  it  as  much  as 
possible;  but  why  close  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  friendship  is  impossible 
while  jealousy  exists  ?  Hence  England  seizes  every  island  in  the  sea  and 
rock  upon  our  coast  where  she  can  plant  a  gun  to  intimidate  us  or  to  annoy 
our  commerce.  Her  policy  has  been  to  seize  every  military  and  naval  sta 
tion  the  world  over.  Why  does  she  pay  such  enormous  sums  to  keep  her 
post  at  Gibraltar,  except  to  hold  it  '  in  terrorem'  over  the  commerce  of  the 
Mediterranean  ?  Why  her  enormous  expense  to  maintain  a  garrison  at  the 
Cape  of  Good  Hope,  except  to  command  the  great  passage  on  the  way  to  the 
Indies  ?  Why  is  she  at  the  expense  to  keep  her  position  on  the  little  barren 
islands  Bermuda  and  the  miserable  Bahamas,  and  all  the  other  islands 
along  our  coast,  except  as  sentinels  upon  our  actions  ?  Does  England  hold 
Bermuda  because  of  any  profit  it  is  to  her  ?  Has  she  any  other  motive  for 
retaining  it  except  jealousy  which  stimulates  hostility  to  us  ?  Is  it  not  the 
case  with  all  her  possessions  along  our  coast?  Why,  then,  talk  about  the 


114  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

friendly  bearing  of  England  toward  us  when  she  is  extending  that  policy 
every  day  ?  New  treaties  of  friendship,  seizure  of  islands,  and  erection  of 
new  colonies  in  violation  of  her  treaties,  seem  to  be  the  order  of  the  day.  In 
view  of  this  state  of  things,  I  am  in  favor  of  meeting  England  as  we  meet  a 
rival ;  meet  her  boldly,  treat  her  justly  and  fairly,  but  make  no  humiliating 
concession  even  for  the  sake  of  peace.  She  has  as  much  reason  to  make 
concessions  to  us  as  we  have  to  make  them  to  her.  I  would  not  willingly 
disturb  the  peace  of  the  world,  but,  sir,  the  Bay  Island  colony  must  be  dis 
continued.  It  violates  the  treaty.'11 

At  a  subsequent  part  of  the  debate  he  quoted  the  letter  of 
Mr.  Everett  (secretary  of  state  under  Mr.  Fillmore)  declining, 
on  the  part  of  the  United  States  government,  the  agreement 
proposed  by  England  and  France,  that  neither  nation  should 
ever  annex  or  take  possession  of  Cuba.  Mr.  Everett,  in  de 
clining  that  proposition,  said : 

"  But,  whatever  may  be  thought  of  these  last  suggestions,  it  would  seem 
impossible  for  any  one  who  reflects  upon  the  events  glanced  at  in  this  note 
to  mistake  the  law  of  American  growth  and  progress,  or  think  it  can  be  ulti 
mately  arrested  by  a  convention  like  that  proposed.  In  the  judgment  of  the 
President,  it  would  be  as  easy  to  throw  a  dam  from  Cape  Florida  to  Cuba, 
in  the  hope  of  stopping  the  flow  of  the  Gulf  Stream,  as  to  attempt,  by  a  com 
pact  like  this,  to  fix  the  fortunes  of  Cuba,  now  and  for  hereafter,  or,  as  is 
expressed  in  the  French  text  of  the  convention,  'pour  le  present  comme  pour 
PavemY — that  is,  for  all  coming  time." 

Mr.  Douglas,  in  commenting  upon  this,  said : 
"There  the  senator  is.  told  that  such  a  stipulation  (to  annex  no  more  ter 
ritory)  might  be  applicable  to  European  politics,  but  would  be  unsuited  and 
unfitted  to  American  affairs ;  that  he  has  mistaken  entirely  the  system  of 
policy  which  should  be  applied  to  our  own  country ;  that  he  has  predicated 
his  action  upon  those  old  antiquated  notions  which  belong  to  the  stationary 
and  retrograde  movements  of  the  Old  World,  and  find  no  sympathy  in  the 
youthful,  uprising  aspirations  of  the  American  heart.  I  endorse  fully  the 
sentiment.  I  insist  that  there  is  a  difference,  a  wide  difference,  between  the 
system  of  policy  which  should  be  pursued  in  America  and  that  which  would 
be  applicable  to  Europe.  Europe  is  antiquated,  decrepit,  tottering  on  the 
verge  of  dissolution.  When  you  visit  her,  the  objects  which  enlist  your 
highest  admiration  are  the  relics  of  past  greatness ;  the  broken  columns 
erected  to  departed  power.  It  is  one  vast  grave-yard,  where  you  find  here  a 
tomb  indicating  the  burial  of  the  arts ;  there  a  monument  marking  the  spot 
where  liberty  expired ;  another  to  the  memory  of  a  great  man  whose  place 
has  never  been  filled.  The  choicest  products  of  her  classic  soil  consist  in 
relics,  which  remain  as  sad  memorials  of  departed  glory  and  fallen  greatness ! 
They  bring  up  the  memories  of  the  dead,  but  inspire  no  hope  for  the  living ! 
Here  every  thing  is  fresh,  blooming,  expanding,  and  advancing.  We  wish 
a  wise,  practical  policy  adapted  to  our  condition  and  position.  Sir,  the 
statesman  who  would  shape  the  policy  of  America  by  European  models,  has 
failed  to  perceive  the  antagonism  which  exists  in  the  relative  position,  history, 
institutions — in  every  thing  pertaining  to  the  Old  and  the  New  World." 

THE   FKIENDSHIP    OF   ENGLAND. 

In  reply  to  a  remark,  in  the  same  debate,  by  Mr.  Butler,  he 
said: 


TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION. — FOREIGN   AGGRESSIONS.       115 

"I  can  not  go  as  far  as  the  senator  from  South  Carolina.  I  can  not  rec 
ognize  England  as  our  mother.  If  so,  she  is  and  ever  has  been  a  cruel  and 
unnatural  mother.  I  do  not  find  the  evidence  of  her  affection  in  her  watch 
fulness  over  our  infancy,  nor  in  her  joy  and  pride  at  our  ever-blooming  pros 
perity  and  swelling  power  since  we  assumed  an  independent  position. 

"The  proposition  is  not  historically  true.  Our  ancestry  were  not  all  of 
English  origin.  They  were  of  Scotch,  Irish,  German,  French,  and  of  Nor 
man  descent  as  well  as  English.  In  short,  we  inherit  from  every  branch  of 
the  Caucasian  race.  It  has  been  our  aim  and  policy  to  profit  by  their  exam 
ple — to  reject  their  errors  and  follies — and  to  retain,  imitate,  cultivate,  per 
petuate  all  that  was  valuable  and  desirable.  So  far  as  any  portion  of  the 
credit  may  be  due  to  England  and  Englishmen — and  much  of  it  is — let  it  be 
freely  awarded  and  recorded  in  her  ancient  archives,  which  seem  to  have 
been  long  since  forgotten  by  her,  and  the  memory  of  which  her  present 
policy  toward  us  is  not  well  calculated  to  revive.  But,  that  the  senator  from 
South  Carolina,  in  view  of  our  present  position  and  of  his  location  in  this 
confederacy,  should  indulge  in  glowing  and  eloquent  eulogiums  of  England 
for  the  blessings  and  benefits  she  has  conferred  and  is  still  lavishing  upon  us, 
and  urge  these  considerations  in  palliation  of  the  wrongs  she  is  daily  perpe 
trating,  is  to  me  amazing.  He  speaks  in  terms  of  delight  and  gratitude  of 
the  copious  and  refreshing  streams  which  English  literature  and  science  are 
pouring  into  our  country  and  diffusing  throughout  the  land.  Is  he  not 
aware  that  nearly  every  English  book  circulated  and  read  in  this  country 
contains  lurking  and  insidious  slanders  and  libels  upon  the  character  of  our 
people  and  the  institutions  and  policy  of  our  government  ?  Does  he  not 
know  that  abolitionism,  which  has  so  seriously  threatened  the  peace  and 
safety  of  this  republic,  had  its  origin  in  England,  and  has  been  incorporated 
into  the  policy  of  that  government  for  the  purpose  of  operating  upon  the  pe 
culiar  institutions  of  some  of  the  states  of  this  confederacy,  and  thus  render 
the  Union  itself  insecure  ?  Does  she  not  keep  her  missionaries  perambu 
lating  this  country,  delivering  lectures,  and  scattering  broadcast  incendiary 
publications,  designed  to  incite  prejudices,  hate,  and  strife  between  the  dif 
ferent  sections  of  this  Union?  I  had  supposed  that  South  Carolina  and  the 
other  slaveholding  states  of  this  confederacy  had  been  sufficiently  refreshed 
and  enlightened  by  a  certain  species  of  English  literature,  designed  to  stir  up 
treason  and  insurrection  around  his  own  fireside,  to  have  excused  the  sena 
tor  from  offering  up  praises  and  hosannas  to  our  English  mother !  (Applause 
in  the  galleries. )  Is  not  the  heart,  intellect,  and  press  of  England  this  mo 
ment  employed  in  flooding  America  with  this  species  of  '  English  literature  ?' 
Even  the  wives  and  daughters  of  the  nobility  and  the  high  officers  of  govern 
ment  have  had  the  presumption  to  address  the  women  of  America,  and  in 
the  name  of  philanthropy  appeal  to  them  to  engage  in  the  treasonable  plot 
against  the  institutions  and  government  of  their  own  choice  in  their  native 
land,  while  millions  are  being  expended  to  distribute  '  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin' 
throughout  the  world,  with  the  view  of  combining  the  fanaticism,  ignorance, 
and  hatred  of  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  in  a  common  crusade  against  the 
peculiar  institutions  of  the  state  and  section  of  this  Union  represented  by  the 
senator  from  South  Carolina ;  and  he  unwittingly  encourages  it  by  giving 
vent  to  his  rapturous  joy  over  these  copious  and  refreshing  streams  with 
which  England  is  irrigating  the  American  intellect."  (Renewed  applause 
in  the  galleries.) 

REPELLING  FOREIGN  AGGRESSIONS. 

Mr.  Douglas  has  always  been  in  favor  of  a  strict  mainte 
nance  of  all  the  rights  of  nations,  and  of  the  respect  and  obliga- 


116  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

tions  properly  due  from  one  nation  to  another.  He  has  always 
declared  that  the  best  way  to  preserve  peace  was  to  enforce  a 
respect  for  American  rights,  and  the  surest  way  to  invite  a  war 
was  to  submit  to  outrage  and  injustice,  and  thus  provoke  a 
state  of  circumstances  from  which  war  must  necessarily  result. 
In  all  things  Mr.  Douglas  expresses  his  views  so  clearly  and 
distinctly  that  no  language  can  be  employed  that  will  so  read 
ily  inform  the  reader  as  to  his  opinions  as  his  own.  In  the 
Senate,  in  a  debate  on  the  Naval  Appropriation  Bill,  on  the  7th 
of  June,  1858,  he  discussed  the  whole  subject  of  foreign  aggres 
sions,  and  thus  distinctly  stated  his  views : 

"I  agree,  Mr.  President,  with  most  that  has  been  said  by  my  friend  from 
Georgia  (Mr.  Toombs),  and  especially  that  we  ought  to  determine  what  we 
are  to  do  in  reference  to  the  outrages  upon  our  flag  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico 
and  the  West  Indies,  before  we  decide  the  amount  of  money  we  shall  vote 
for  war  purposes.  If  we  are  going  to  content  ourselves  with  simple  resolu 
tions  that  we  will  not  submit  to  that  which  we  have  resolved  for  half  a  cen 
tury  should  never  be  repeated,  I  see  no  use  in  additional  appropriations  for 
navy  or  for  army.  If  we  are  going  to  be  contented  with  loud-sounding 
speeches,  with  defiances  to  the  British  lion,  with  resolutions  of  the  Senate 
alone,  not  concurred  in  by  the  other  House,  conferring  no  power  on  the  ex 
ecutive — merely  capital  for  the  country,  giving  no  power  to  the  executive  to 
avenge  insults  or  prevent  their  repetition,  what  is  the  use  of  voting  money  ? 
I  find  that  patriotic  gentlemen  are  ready  to  talk  loud,  resolve  strong ;  but 
are  they  willing  to  appropriate  the  money?  Are  they  willing  to  confer  on 
the  executive  power  to  repel  these  insults,  and  to  avenge  them  whenever  they 
may  be  perpetrated  ?  Let  us  know  whether  we  are  to  submit  and  protest,  or 
whether  we  are  to  authorize  the  President  to  resist  and  to  prevent  the  repe 
tition  of  these  offenses.  If  senators  are  prepared  to  vote  for  a  law  reviving 
the  act  of  1839,  putting  the  army,  the  navy,  volunteers,  and  money  at  the  dis 
posal  of  the  President  to  prevent  the  repetition  of  these  acts,  and  to  punish 
them  if  repeated,  then  I  am  ready  to  give  the  ships  and  the  money ;  but  I 
desire  to  know  whether  we  are  to  submit  to  these  insults  with  a  simple  pro 
test,  or  whether  we  are  to  repel  them. 

"  Gentlemen  ask  us  to  vote  ships  and  money,  and  they  talk  to  us  about  the 
necessity  of  a  ship  in  China,  and  about  outrages  in  Tampico,  and  disturb 
ances  in  South  America,  and  Indian  difficulties  in  Puget's  Sound.  Every 
enemy  that  can  be  found  on  the  face  of  the  earth  is  defied  except  the  one 
that  defies  us.  Bring  in  a  proposition  here  to  invest  the  President  with  pow 
er  to  repel  British  aggressions  on  American  ships,  and  what  is  the  response  ? 
High-sounding  resolutions,  declaring  in  effect,  if  not  in  terms,  that  whereas 
Great  Britain  has  perpetrated  outrages  on  our  flag  and  our  shipping  whicn 
are  intolerable  and  insufferable,  and  must  not  be  repeated,  therefore,  if  she 
does  so  again,  we  will  whip  Mexico,  or  we  will  pounce  down  upon  Nicaragua, 
or  we  will  get  up  a  fight  with  Costa  Rica,  or  we  will  chastise  New  Granada, 
or  we  will  punish  the  Chinese,  or  we  will  repel  the  Indians  from  Puget's 
Sound  [laughter],  but  not  a  word  about  Great  Britain.  What  I  desire  to 
know  is  whether  we  are  to  meet  this  issue  with  Great  Britain  ?  I  am  told 
we  shall  do  it  when  we  are  prepared.  Sir,  when  will  you  be  prepared  to  re 
pel  an  insult  unless  when  it  is  given? 

**         *         *         **         ****** 

"  Sir,  I  tremble  for  the  fame  of  America,  for  her  honor,  and  for  her  char- 


TEKEITOKIAL  EXPANSION. — FOEEIGN   AGGRESSIONS.       117 

acter,  when  we  shall  be  silent  in  regard  to  British  outrages,  and  avenge  our 
selves  by  punishing  the  weaker  powers  instead  of  grappling  with  the  stronger. 
I  never  did  fancy  that  policy  nor  admire  that  chivalry  which  induced  a  man, 
when  insulted  by  a  strong  man  of  his  own  size,  to  say  that  he  would  whip 
the  first  boy  he  found  in  the  street  in  order  to  vindicate  his  honor,  or,  as  is 
suggested  by  a  gentleman  behind  me,  that  he  would  go  home  and  whip  his 
wife  [laughter]  in  order  to  show  his  courage,  inasmuch  as  he  was  afraid  to 
tackle  the  full-grown  man  who  had  committed  the  aggression.  Sir,  these 
outrages  can  not  be  concealed ;  they  can  not  have  the  go-by ;  we  must  meet 
them  face  to  face.  Now  is  the  time  when  England  must  give  up  her  claim 
to  search  American  vessels,  or  we  must  be  silent  in  our  protests,  and  resolu 
tions,  and  valorous  speeches  against  that  claim.  It  will  not  do  to  raise  a 
navy  for  the  Chinese  seas,  nor  for  Puget's  Sound,  nor  for  Mexico,  nor  for  the 
South  American  republics.  It  may  be  used  for  those  purposes,  but  England 
must  first  be  dealt  with.  Sir,  we  shall  be  looked  upon  as  showing  the  white 
feather  if  we  strike  a  blow  at  any  feeble  power  until  these  English  aggres 
sions  and  insults  are  first  punished,  and  security  is  obtained  that  they  are  not 
to  be  repeated." 

After  referring  to  the  unanimous  action  of  Congress  in  1839 
investing  Mr.  Van  Buren  with  power  and  means  to  resist  ag 
gressions  during  the  controversy  respecting  the  northeastern 
boundary,  he  said  : 

"The  vote  in  the  Senate  was  unanimous,  and  in  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  it  was  one  hundred  and  ninety-seven  against  six.  This  unanimity 
among  the  American  people,  as  manifested  by  their  representatives,  saved 
the  two  countries  from  war,  and  preserved  peace  between  England  and  the 
United  States  upon  that  question.  If  the  Senate  had  been  nearly  equally  di 
vided  in  1839,  if  there  had  been  but  half  a  dozen  majority  for  the  passage  of 
the  measure,  if  the  vote  had  been  nearly  divided  in  the  House  of  Representa 
tives,  England  would  have  taken  courage  from  the  divisions  in  our  own  coun 
cils,  she  would  have  pressed  her  claim  to  a  point  that  would  have  been  ut 
terly  inadmissible  and  incompatible  with  our  honor,  and  war  would  have  been 
the  inevitable  consequence. 

' '  I  tell  you,  sir,  the  true  peace  measure  is  that  which  resents  the  insult  and 
redresses  the  wrong  promptly  upon  the  spot,  with  a  unanimity  that  shows  the 
nation  can  not  be  divided." 

He  thus  closed  his  remarks : 

"Besides,  sir,  as  has  been  intimated  by  the  senator  from  Massachusetts, 
England  has  given  pledges  for  her  good  behavior  on  this  continent.  She  is 
bound  over  to  keep  the  peace.  She  has  large  possessions  upon  this  continent 
of  which  she  could  be  deprived  in  ninety  days  after  war  existed ;  and  she 
knows  that,  the  moment  she  engages  in  war  with  us,  that  moment  her  power 
upon  the  American  continent  and  upon  the  adjacent  islands  ceases  to  exist. 
While  I  am  opposed  to  war — while  I  have  no  idea  of  any  breach  of  the  peace 
with  England,  yet  I  confess  to  you,  sir,  if  war  should  come  by  her  act  and  not 
ours — by  her  invasion  of  our  right  and  our  vindication  of  the  same,  I  would 
administer  to  every  citizen  and  every  child  Hannibal's  oath  of  eternal  hostil 
ity  as  long  as  the  English  flag  waved  or  their  government  claimed  a  foot  of 
land  upon  the  American  continent  or  the  adjacent  islands.  Sir,  I  would 
make  it  a  war  that  would  settle  our  disputes  forever,  not  only  of  the  right  of 
search  upon  the  seas,  but  the  right  to  tread  with  a  hostile  foot  upon  the  soil 
of  the  American  continent  or  its  appendages.  England  sees  that  these  con 
sequences  would  result.  Her  statesmen  understand  these  results  as  well  as 


118  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

we,  and  much  better.  Her  statesmen  have  more  respect  for  us  in  this  partic 
ular  than  we  have  for  ourselves.  They  will  never  push  this  question  to  the 
point  of  war.  They  will  look  you  in  the  eye,  march  to  you  steadily,  as  long 
as  they  find  it  is  prudent.  If  you  cast  the  eye  down  she  will  rush  upon  you. 
If  you  look  her  in  the  eye  steadily,  she  will  shake  hands  with  you  as  friends, 
and  have  respect  for  you. 

" Mr.  Hammond.   Suppose  she  does  not? 

"  Mr.  Douglas.  Suppose  she  does  not,  my  friend  from  South  Carolina  asks 
me.  If  she  does  not,  then  we  will  appeal  to  the  God  of  battles — we  will 
arouse  the  patriotism  of  the  American  nation — we  will  blot  out  all  distinc 
tions  of  party,  the  voice  of  faction  will  be  hushed,  the  American  people  will 
be  a  unit ;  none  but  the  voice  of  patriotism  will  be  heard,  and  from  the  north 
and  the  south,  from  the  east  and  the  west,  we  will  come  up  as  a  band  of 
brothers,  animated  by  a  common  spirit  and  a  common  patriotism,  as  were 
our  fathers  of  the  Revolution,  to  repel  the  foreign  enemy,  and  afterward  dif 
fer  as  we  please,  and  discuss  at  our  leisure  matters  of  domestic  dispute.  Sir, 
I  am  willing  to  suppose  the  case  which  is  suggested  by  the  senator  from  South 
Carolina :  suppose  England  does  not  respect  our  rights  ?  To  fight  her  now — 

"  Mr.  Hammond.  I  said,  suppose  England  would  not  submit  to  be  bullied. 

' '  Mr.  Douglas.  Who  proposes  to  bully  England  ? 

4 '  Mr.  Hammond.  I  understood  the  senator  to  say  that  if  we  looked  down 
she  would  rush  on  us,  but  if  we  looked  up  she  would  give  way.  I  consider 
that  bullying. 

"  Mr.  Douglas.  Precisely  ;  that  is  the  case  of  a  bully  always.  He  will  fix 
his  eye  on  his  antagonist's,  and  see  if  it  is  steady.  If  it  is  not,  he  will  ap 
proach  a  little  nearer.  If  it  is,  he  stops  ;  but  if  his  eye  sinks,  he  rushes  on 
him ;  and  that  is  the  parallel  in  which  I  put  England,  playing  the  bully  with 
us.  The  question  is,  whether  we  will  look  her  steadily  in  the  eye,  and  main 
tain  our  rights  against  her  aggressions.  We  do  not  wish  to  bully  England. 
She  is  resisting  no  claim  of  ours.  She  sets  up  the  claim  to  search  our  vessels, 
stop  them  on  the  high  seas,  invade  our  rights,  and  we  say  to  her  that  we  will 
not  submit  to  that  aggression.  I  would  ask  to  have  the  United  States  act 
upon  the  defensive  in  all  things — make  no  threat,  indulge  in  no  bullying,  but 
simply  assert  our  right ;  then  maintain  the  assertion  with  whatever  power 
may  be  necessary,  and  the  God  of  our  fathers  may  have  imparted  to  us  for 
maintaining  it — that  is  all.  I  believe  that  is  the  true  course  to  peace.  I 
repeat  that,  if  war  with  England  comes,  it  will  result  from  our  vacillation, 
our  division,  our  hesitation,  our  apprehensions  lest  we  might  be  whipped  in 
the  fight.  Perhaps  we  might.  I  do  not  believe  it.  I  believe  the  moment 
England  declares  war  against  the  United  States,  the  prestige  of  her  power  is 
gone.  It  will  unite  our  own  people ;  it  will  give  us  the  sympathy  of  the 
world ;  it  will  destroy  her  commerce  and  her  manufactures,  while  it  will  ex 
tend  our  own.  It  will  sink  her  to  a  second-rate  power  upon  the  face  of  the 
globe,  and  leave  us  without  a  rival  who  can  dispute  our  supremacy.  We 
shall,  however,  come  to  that  point  early  through  the  paths  of  peace.  Such 
is  the  tendency  of  things  now.  I  would  rather  approach  it  by  peaceable, 
quiet  means,  by  the  arts  and  sciences,  by  agriculture,  by  commerce,  by  immi 
gration,  by  natural  growth  and  expansion,  than  by  warfare.  But  if  England 
is  impatient  of  our  rising  power,  if  she  desires  to  hasten  it,  and  should  force 
war  upon  us,  she  will  seal  her  doom  now ;  whereas  Providence  might  ex 
tend  to  her,  if  not  a  pardon,  at  least  a  reprieve  for  a  few  short  years  to  come." 

FILIBUSTEKISil. 

On  the  7th  of  January,  185  8,  President  Buchanan  communi 
cated  to  the  Senate,  in  obedience  to  a  resolution  of  that  body, 


TEKEITOKIAL  EXPANSION. — FOEEIGN  AGGRESSIONS.       119 

copies  of  the  orders,  instructions,  and  correspondence  with  ref 
erence  to  the  arrest  of  William  Walker  on  the  coast  of  Central 
America.  On  the  motion  to  refer  these  documents,  a  debate 
took  place  involving  the  propriety  of  Commodore  Paulding's 
conduct,  and  the  course  of  the  President  in  relation  thereto, 
and  also  as  to  the  views  expressed  by  him  in  his  communica 
tion  accompanying  the  papers.  In  this  debate,  Messrs.  Davis 
and  Brown  of  Mississippi,  Pugh  of  Ohio,  and  Toombs  of  Geor 
gia,  sharply  criticised  the  message,  and  repudiated  the  exist 
ence  of  the  power  claimed  by  the  President  in  his  message. 
The  President  was  ably  defended,  and  with  much  warmth,  by 
Mr.  Seward,  and  by  Mr.  Doolittle  of  Wisconsin.  During  this 
debate  Mr.  Douglas  expressed  his  views  upon  the  affair,  and 
upon  filibusterism  generally,  in  the  following  terms : 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  do  not  rise  to  prolong  the  debate,  but  to  return  the  com 
pliment  which  my  friend  from  Mississippi  [Mr.  Brown]  paid  me  when  he  said 
he  admired  my  pluck  in  speaking  my  sentiments  freely,  without  fear,  when 
I  diifered  from  the  President  of  the  United  States.  He  has  shown  his  pluck, 
and  various  others  have  shown  theirs,  on  the  present  occasion.  According 
to  the  doctrine  announced  the  other  day,  each  senator  who  has  done  so  has 
read  himself  out  of  the  party.  I  find  that  I  am  getting  into  good  company ; 
I  have  numerous  associates ;  I  am  beating  up  recruits  a  little  faster  than 
General  Walker  is  at  this  time.  [Laughter.]  I  think,  however,  it  will  be 
found,  after  a  while,  that  we  are  all  in  the  party,  intending  to  do  our  duty, 
expressing  our  opinions  freely  and  fearlessly,  without  any  apprehension  of 
being  excommunicated,  or  having  any  penalties  inflicted  on  us  for  thinking 
and  speaking  as  we  choose.  If  my  friend  from  Louisiana  [Mr.  Slidell]  were 
in  his  seat,  I  should  say  to  him,  inasmuch  as  he  declared  in  his  Tammany 
Hall  letter  that  he  was  going  to  fill  by  recruits  from  the  Republicans  all  the 
vacancies  caused  by  desertions  in  the  Democratic  party  on  account  of  differ 
ences  with  the  President  in  opinion,  that  he  seems  to  have  been  very  success 
ful  to-day  in  getting  leading  Republicans  on  his  side,  and  recruiting  his  ranks 
just  about  as  rapidly  as  there  are  desertions  on  this  side  of  the  house. 
[Laughter.]  The  senator  from  New  York,  I  believe,  has  the  command  of 
the  new  recruits.  Well,  sir,  strange  things  occur  in  these  days.  Men  rap 
idly  find  themselves  in  line  and  out  of  line,  in  the  party  and  out  of  the  party. 

Mr.  Seward.  Will  the  honorable  senator  allow  me  to  interrupt  him  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Seward.  I  have  an  inducement  on  this  occasion  which  is  new  and 
peculiarly  gratifying  to  me,  which  will  excuse  me  for  being  found  on  the  side 
of  the  administration.  The  message  announces  that,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
President,  this  expedition  of  Mr.  Walker  was  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  the 
land,  and  therefore  to  be  condemned.  So  far  I  agree  with  him  ;  but  he  goes 
further,  and  pronounces  it  to  be  in  violation  of  "the  higher  law ;"  and  I  am 
sure  I  should  be  recreant  to  my  sense  of  "the  higher  law"  itself  if  I  did  not 
come  to  his  support  on  such  an  occasion.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  perceive  the  consistency  of  the  senator  from  New  York 
in  the  ground  on  which  he  bases  his  support  of  this  message.  Now,  sir,  so 
fax  as  the  President  pronounces  this  arrest  of  General  Walker  to  have  been 
a  violation  of  the  law  of  the  land,  I  concur  with  him.  As  to  the  allusion  to 


120  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

"the  higher  law,"  I  think  that  is  well  enough  in  its  place,  but  it  is  not  ex 
actly  appropriate  in  the  execution  of  the  neutrality  laws  of  the  United  States. 
I  would  rather  look  into  the  statutes  of  the  United  States  for  the  authority 
of  the  President  to  use  the  army  and  navy  in  enforcing  the  neutrality  laws. 
By  the  statute  of  1818  he  has  ample  authority  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
United  States,  and  that  jurisdiction  is  defined  to  extend  as  far  as  one  marine 
league  from  the  coast.  If  an  arrest  be  m#de  within  that  distance,  the  courts 
of  the  United  States  have  jurisdiction,  but  there  is  no  authority  to  arrest  be 
yond  that  distance.  The  authority  given  in  the  eighth  section  of  the  act,  to 
which  reference  is  made,  but  which  is  not  quoted  in  the  message,  is  confined 
in  terms  to  cases  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  as  defined  in  the 
act.  How  defined  ?  Defined  in  the  previous  sections  as  being  within  one 
marine  league  of  the  coast.  It  thus  appears  that  the  whole  extent  of  the 
President's  power  to  use  the  army  and  navy  under  the  act  of  1818  is  within 
our  own  waters,  and  one  marine  league  from  the  coast. 

I  did  suppose  that  the  President  himself  put  that  construction  on  his  au 
thority,  for  I  understood  him  to  ask  for  further  and  additional  authority  from 
Congress  to  enable  him  to  put  down  filibustering  expeditions.  What  further 
authority  could  he  want,  if  the  existing  laws  allowed  him  to  roam  over  the 
high  seas,  and  sail  around  the  world,  and  go  within  one  marine  league  of  ev 
ery  nation  on  the  earth  ?  It  might  be  supposed  that  his  authority  was  ex 
tensive  enough  to  employ  his  entire  navy,  and  that,  certainly,  he  would  not 
ask  for  power  to  invade  other  nations. 

For  these  reasons  I  supposed  that  the  President,  on  reflection  and  examina 
tion,  had  come  to  the  conclusion  that  his  authority  was  full  and  ample  within 
one  marine  league  of  our  coast,  and  ceased  the  moment  you  passed  beyond 
that  on  the  high  seas.  That  has  been  my  construction  of  the  neutrality  laws. 
I  believe  it  is  the  fair  construction.  I  am  in  favor  of  giving  those  neutrality 
laws  a  fair,  faithful,  and  vigorous  execution.  I  believe  the  laws  of  the  land 
should  be  vigorously  and  faithfully  executed.  There  may  be  public  senti 
ment  in  certain  localities  unfavorable  to  the  operation  of  the  law,  but  preju 
dice  should  not  be  alloAved  to  deter  us  from  its  execution.  This  is  a  govern 
ment  of  law.  Let  us  stand  by  the  laws  so  long  as  they  stand  upon  the  stat 
ute-book,  and  execute  them  faithfully,  whether  we  like  or  dislike  them. 

Sir,  I  have  no  fancy  for  this  system  of  filibustering.  I  believe  its  tendency 
is  to  defeat  the  very  object  they  have  in  view,  to  wit,  the  extension  of  the  area 
of  freedom  and  the  American  flag.  The  President  avows  that  his  opposition 
to  it  is  because  it  prevents  him  from  carrying  out  a  line  of  policy  that  would 
absorb  Nicaragua  and  the  countries  against  which  these  expeditions  are  fitted 
out.  I  do  not  know  that  I  should  dissent  from  the  President  in  that  object. 
I  would  like  to  see  the  boundaries  of  this  republic  extended  gradually  and 
steadily,  as  fast  as  we  can  Americanize  the  countries  we  acquire,  and  make 
their  inhabitants  loyal  American  citizens  when  we  get  them.  Faster  than 
that  I  would  not  desire  to  go.  My  opposition  to  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty, 
which  pledges  the  faith  of  this  nation  never  to  annex  Central  America,  or 
colonize  it,  or  exercise  dominion  over  it,  was  not  based  on  the  ground  that  I 
desired  then  to  acquire  the  country ;  but  inasmuch  as  I  saw  that  the  time 
might  come  when  Nicaragua  would  not  be  too  far  off  to  be  embraced  within 
our  republic,  being  just  half  way  to  California,  and  on  the  main  road  there, 
I  was  unwilling  to  pledge  the  faith  of  this  nation  that  in  all  time  we  never 
would  do  that  which  I  believed  our  interest  and  our  safety  would  compel  us 
to  do.  I  have  no  objection  to  this  gradual  and  steady  expansion  as  fast  as 
we  can  Americanize  the  countries.  I  believe  the  interests  of  commerce,  of 
civilization,  every  interest  which  civilized  nations  hold  dear,  would  be  bene 
fited  by  expansion ;  but  still  I  desire  to  see  it  done  regularly  and  lawfully, 
and  I  apprehend  that  these  expeditions  have  a  tendency  to  check  it.  To 


TERRITORIAL   EXPANSION. FOREIGN   AGGRESSIONS.       121 

that  extent  I  have  sympathized  with  the  reasons  which  the  President  has  as 
signed  in  his  message  for  his  opposition  to  them ;  but  I  desire  that  his  oppo 
sition  shall  be  conducted  lawfully ;  for  I  am  no  more  willing  to  allow  him  un 
lawfully  to  break  them  up  than  I  am  to  permit  them  unlawfully  to  fit  them 
out.  I  am  not  willing  to  send  out  naval  officers  with  vague  instructions,  and 
set  them  to  filibustering  all  over  the  high  seas  and  in  the  ports  of  foreign 
countries  under  the  pretext  of  putting  down  filibustering.  Let  us  hold  the 
navy  clearly  within  the  law.  Let  the  instructions  that  are  given  to  our  of 
ficers  be  clear  and  specific  ;  and  if  they  do  not  obey  the  law,  cashier  them, 
or,  by  other  punishment,  reduce  them  to  obedience  to  the  law. 

But  in  this  case  it  is  a  very  strange  fact  that  Captain  Chatard  is  degraded 
and  brought  home  for  not  arresting  Walker  on  the  identical  spot  where  Com 
modore  Paulding  did  arrest  him.  Paulding  and  Chatard  are  thus  placed  in 
a  peculiar  position.  Paulding  arrests  him,  we  are  told,  in  violation  of  law. 
Chatard  is  degraded  for  not  arresting  him  in  violation  of  law.  This  shows 
that  the  moment  we  depart  from  the  path  of  duty,  as  defined  by  law,  we  get 
into  difficulty  every  step  we  take.  All  the  difficulties  and  embarrassments 
connected  with  the  conduct  of  Paulding  and  Chatard  arise  from  the  fact  that 
in  our  anxiety  to  preserve  the  good  opinion  of  other  nations,  by  putting  a  stop 
to  filibustering,  we  have  gone  bsyond  the  authority  of  law.  I  think  it  will  be 
better  for  us  to  confine  ourselves  to  the  faithful  execution  of  the  neutrality 
laws  as  they  stand,  and  stop  these  expeditions,  if  we  can.  before  they  are  fitted 
out.  If,  notwithstanding  our  efforts,  they  escape,  we  are  not  responsible  for 
them.  I  do  not  hold  that  every  three  men  that  leave  this  country  with  guns 
upon  their  shoulders  are  necessarily  fitting  out  a  military  expedition  against 
countries  with  which  we  are  at  peace.  Each  citizen  of  the  United  States  has 
the  same  right  under  the  Constitution  to  expatriate  himself  that  a  man  of 
foreign  birth  has  to  naturalize  himself  under  our  laws.  When  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States  declares  that  foreigners  coming  here  may  be  natu 
ralized,  it  recognizes  the  universal  principle  that  all  men  have  a  right  to  ex 
patriate  themselves  and  become  naturalized  in  other  countries.  Walker  had 
a  right,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  to  become  a  naturalized 
citizen  of  Nicaragua.  Nicaragua  had  the  same  right  to  make  him  a  citizen 
of  that  country  that  we  have  to  make  a  German  or  an  Irishman  a  citizen  of 
this.  When  Walker  went  from  California,  on  his  first  expedition  to  Nicara 
gua,  and  became  naturalized  there,  he  was  from  that  moment  a  citizen  of 
Nicaragua,  and  not  a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  You  have  no  more  right 
to  treat  Walker  as  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  than  Great  Britain  has  to 
follow  an  Irishman  to  this  country,  and  claim  that  he  is  a  British  subject 
aftar  he  has  bsen  naturalized  here.  You  have  no  more  right  to  put  your 
hands  on  Walker,  after  his  naturalization  by  Nicaragua,  than  Austria  or 
Prussia  has  to  follow  their  former  subjects  here  and  arrest  them  on  £he  ground 
that  they  were  once  Germans,  Walker  is  a  Nicaraguan,  and  not  an  Amer 
ican.  Since  he  has  been  President  of  that  republic,  recognized  as  such,  it  is 
too  late  for  us  to  deny  that  he  is  a  citizen  of  that  country,  or  to  claim  that  he 
is  an  American  citizen.  We  are  not  responsible  for  his  action  when  he  is 
once  beyond  our  jurisdiction.  If  he  violated  our  laws  here,  we  can  punish 
him  ;  but  we  have  no  right  to  punish  him  for  any  violation  of  the  laws  of 
Nicaragua.  If  he  invites  men  to  join  him,  and  they  get  their  necks  in  the 
halter,  they  must  not  call  upon  us  to  untie  the  noose  after  they  have  expa 
triated  themselves. 

It  is  a  modern  doctrine  that  no  citizen  can  leave  our  shores  to  engage  in  a 
foreign  war.  We  filled  the  Russian  regiments,  during  the  Crimean  war,  with 
American  surgeons,  and  only  lately  the  Emperor  of  Russia  has  been  deliver 
ing  medals  and  acknowledgments  of  knighthood  to  these  very  men.  We  also 
allowed  our  men  to  go  and  join  the  Turks,  the  English,  and  the  French,  and 

F 


122  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

fight  against  the  Russians.  American  senators  were  in  the  habit  of  giving  to 
their  friends  letters  to  the  Russian  minister,  in  order  to  enable  them  to  obtain 
from  him  commissions  in  the  Russian  army  during  the  Crimean  war.  Did 
we  suppose  that  we  were  violating  the  neutrality  laws  ?  We  knew  that  each 
person  that  went  on  that  service  went  on  his  own  responsbility.  If  he  got  a 
leg  shot  off,  he  could  not  call  upon  us  to  protect  him,  or  to  punish  the  man 
who  shot  the  gun.  So  it  is  with  those  who  choose  to  go  to  Nicaragua  and 
try  their  fortunes  there. 

I  had  hoped  that  the  feverish  excitement  in  favor  of  these  expeditions 
would  have  ceased  long  ago,  and  that  we  should  be  enabled  to  acquire  what 
ever  interest  we  desired  in.  Central  America  in  a  regular,  lawful  manner, 
through  negotiation  rather  than  through  these  expeditions.  But,  sir,  when 
I  am  called  upon  to  express  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  legality  of  these 
movements,  I  must  say  that  in  my  judgment  the  arrest  of  Walker  was  an  act 
in  violation  of  the  law  of  nations  and  unauthorized  by  our  own  neutrality 
laws.  To  this  extent,  like  the  gentlemen  around  me  who  have  spoken,!  dis 
sent  from  the  President  of  the  United  States.  I  do  so  with  deep  regret,  with 
great  pain.  My  anxiety  to  act  with  that  distinguished  gentleman,  and  con 
form  to  his  recommendations  as  far  as  possible,  will  induce  me  to  give  the 
benefit  of  all  doubts  in  his  favor;  but  where  my  judgment  is  clear,  like  my 
friend  from  Mississippi  [Mr.  Brown],  I  must  take  it  upon  myself  to  speak  my 
own  opinions  and  abide  the  consequences. 

THE   ACQUISITION   OF   CUBA. 

In  December,  1858,  after  the  election  of  that  year  in  Illinois, 
Mr.  Douglas  visited  the  city  of  New  Orleans.  Ho  was  about 
closing  his  speech  in  explanation  of  his  course  upon  Lecompt- 
onism,  when  there  were  loud  cries  of  "  Cuba !  Cuba !"  from  the 
audience.  In  response  to  these  calls,  Mr.  Douglas  said : 

"  It  is  our  destiny  to  have  Cuba,  and  it  is  folly  to  debate  the  question.  It 
naturally  belongs  to  the  American  continent.  It  guards  the  mouth  of  the 
Mississippi  River,  which  is  the  heart  of  the  American  continent,  and  the 
body  of  the  American  nation.  Its  acquisition  is  a  matter  of  time  only.  Our 
government  should  adopt  the  policy  of  receiving  Cuba  as  soon  as  a  fair  and 
just  opportunity  shall  be  presented.  Whether  that  opportunity  occur  ne^ct 
year  or  the  year  after,  whenever  the  occasion  arises  and  the  opportunity  pre 
sents  itself,  it  should  be  embraced. 

"  The  same  is  true  of  Central  America  and  Mexico.  It  will  not  do  to  say 
we  have  ierritory  enough.  When  the  Constitution  was  formed  there  was 
enough,  yet  in  a  few  years  afterward  we  needed  more.  We  acquired  Lou 
isiana  and  Florida,  Texas  and  California,  just  as  the  increase  in  our  popula 
tion  and  our  interests  demanded.  When,  in  1850,  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty 
was  sent  to  the  Senate  for  ratification,  I  fought  it  to  the  end.  They  then 
asked  what  I  wanted  with  Central  America.  I  told  them  I  did  not  want  it 
then,  but  the  time  would  come  when  we  must  have  it.  They  then  asked 
what  my  objection  to  the  treaty  was.  I  told  them  I  objected  to  that,  among 
other  clauses  of  it,  which  said  that  neither  Great  Britain  nor  the  United 
States  should  ever  buy,  annex,  colonize,  or  acquire  any  portion  of  Central 
America.  I  said  I  would  never  consent  to  a  treaty  with  any  foreign  power 
pledging  ourselves  not  to  do  in  the  future  whatever  interest  or  necessity  might 
compel  us  to  do.  I  was  then  told  by  veteran  senators,  as  my  distinguished 
friend  well  knows  (looking  toward  Mr.  Soule),  that  Central  America  was  so 
far  off  that  we  should  never  want  it.  I  told  them  then,  "  Yes ;  a  good  way 


TERRITORIAL   EXPANSION. FOREIGN   AGGRESSIONS.       123 

off — halfway  to  California,  and  on  the  direct  road  to  it.'  I  said  it  was  our 
right  and  duty  to  open  all  the  highways  between  the  Atlantic  and  the  Gulf 
States  and  our  possessions  on  the  Pacific,  and  that  I  would  enter  into  no 
treaty  with  Great  Britain  or  any  other  government  concerning  the  affairs  of 
the  American  continent.  And  here,  without  a  breach  of  confidence,  I  may 
be  permitted  to  state  a  conversation  which  took  place  at  that  time  between 
myself  and  the  British  minister,  Sir  Henry  Lytton  Bulwer,  on  that  point.  He 
took  occasion  to  remonstrate  with  me  that  my  position  with  regard  to  the 
treaty  was  unjust  and  untenable ;  that  the  treaty  was  fair  because  it  was  re 
ciprocal,  and  it  was  reciprocal  because  it  pledged  that  neither  Great  Britain 
nor  the  United  States  should  ever  purchase,  colonize,  or  acquire  any  terri 
tory  in  Central  America.  I  told  him  that  it  would  be  fair  if  they  would  add 
one  word  to  the  treaty,  so  that  it  would  read  that  neither  Great  Britain  nor 
the  United  States  should  ever  occupy  or  hold  dominion  over  Central  Ameri 
ca  or  Asia.  But  he  said,  '  You  have  no  interests  in  Asia.'  '  No,'  answered 
I,  'and  you  have  none  in  Central  America.' 

"  '  But,'  said  he,  ' you  can  never  establish  any  rights  in  Asia.'  '  No,'  said 
I,  '  and  we  don't  mean  that  you  shall  ever  establish  any  in  America.'  I  told 
him  it  would  be  just  as  respectful  for  us  to  ask  that  pledge  in  reference  to 
Asia,  as  it  was  for  Great  Britain  to  ask  it  from  us  in  reference  to  Central 
America. 

"If  experience  shall  continue  to  prove,  what  the  past  may  be  considered 
to  have  demonstrated,  that  those  little  Central  American  powers  can  not 
maintain  self-government,  the  interests  of  Christendom  require  that  some 
power  should  preserve  order  for  them.  Hence  I  maintain  that  we  should 
adopt  and  observe  a  line  of  policy  in  unison  with  our  own  interests  and  our 
destiny.  I  do  not  wish  to  force  things.  We  live  in  a  rapid  age.  Events 
crowd  upon  each  other  with  marvelous  rapidity.  I  do  not  want  territory  any 
faster  than  we  can  occupy,  Americanize,  and  civilize  it.  I  am  no  filibuster. 
I  am  opposed  to  unlawful  expeditions.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  I  am  opposed 
to  this  country  acting  as  a  miserable  constabulary  for  France  and  England. 

' '  I  am  in  favor  of  expansion  as  fast  as  consistent  with  our  interest  and  the 
increase  and  development  of  our  population  and  resources ;  but  I  am  not  in 
favor  of  that  policy  unless  the  great  principle  of  non-intervention  and  the 
right  of  the  people  to  decide  the  question  of  slavery  and  all  other  domestic 
questions  for  themselves  shall  be  maintained.  If  that  principle  prevail,  we 
have  a  future  before  us  more  glorious  than  that  of  any  other  people  that  ever 
existed.  Our  republic  will  endure  for  thousands  of  years.  Progress  will  be 
the  law  of  its  destiny.  It  will  gain  new  strength  with  every  state  brought 
into  the  confederacy.  Then  there  will  be  peace  and  harmony  between  the 
free  states  and  the  slave  states.  The  more  degrees  of  latitude  and  longitude 
embraced  beneath  our  Constitution,  the  better.  The  greater  the  variety  of 
productions,  the  better ;  for  then  we  shall  have  the  principles  of  free  trade 
apply  to  the  important  staples  of  the  world,  making  us  the  greatest  planting 
as  well  as  the  greatest  manufacturing,  the  greatest  commercial  as  well  as  the 
greatest  agricultural  power  on  the  globe." 


124  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE   COMPROMISE   OF    1850. 

ME.  DOUGLAS  took  an  active  part  in  the  proceedings  which 
resulted  in  the  measures  of  legislation  known  as  the  "  Com 
promise  of  1850."  The  general  history  of  that  compromise  is 
well  known  to  the  American  people.  It  has  for  a  number  of 
years  been  so  thoroughly  and  so  frequently  discussed,  that  its 
history,  as  well  as  its  provisions,  have  become  familiar  to  all 
who  take  an  interest  in  political  matters. 

A  brief  synopsis  of  the  events  preceding  and  attending  the 
adoption  of  that  compromise  will  not  be  uninteresting,  at  least 
to  those  whose  interest  in  the  history  of  Mr.  Douglas's  career 
has  induced  them  to  read  thus  far  in  these  pages.  By  the 
treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo  (voted  against  by  Mr.  Douglas), 
the  United  States,  acquired  the  territory  of  California,  Utah, 
and  New  Mexico.  That  treaty  was  ratified  in  1848,  and  Con 
gress  shortly  after  adjourned  without  making  any  provision 
for  the  government  of  the  newly-acquired  country.  During 
the  short  session  of  1848-'9  several  efforts  were  made,  the  most 
prominent  of  which  was  the  Clayton  Compromise,  and  the 
amendment  of  Mr.  Walker  of  Wisconsin,  which,  though  they 
both  passed  the  Senate,  failed  to  meet  the  approval  of  the 
House  of  Representatives.  The  struggle  was  between  the 
friends  and  the  opponents  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso.  Congress 
adjourned  on  the  4th  of  March,  1849,  without  having  made  any 
provision  for  the  government  of  the  new  territories.  In  the 
mean  time  the  discovery  of  gold  in  California  had  drawn  thou 
sands  to  that  state ;  a  civil  government  was  absolutely  neces 
sary.  The  only  government  there  was  that  of  General  Riley, 
who,  by  virtue  of  his  office  as  commander  of  the  American 
forces,  exercised  to  a  limited  extent  the  functions  of  a  civil 
governor.  During  the  summer  of  1849,  the  people  of  Califor 
nia,  aided  by  General  Riley,  who  acted  under  instructions  from 
Washington,  called  a  convention,  formed  a  state  Constitution, 
elected  state  officers,  put  their  state  government  in  operation, 
elected  two  United  States  senators  and  two  members  of  the 


THE   COMPROMISE    OF    1850.  125 

House  of  Representatives.  The  Constitution  of  the  new  state 
prohibited  slavery.  These  proceedings  in  California  had  great 
ly  added  to  the  excitement  upon  the  pending  issue  of  a  con 
gressional  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  territories.  Those  who 
had  opposed  any  action  of  Congress  which  applied  a  prohibi 
tion  of  slavery  to  any  part  of  the  new  territory  denounced  the 
action  of  the  people  of  California.  They  demanded  that  the 
usurpation  by  the  squatters  on  the  Pacific  should  be  rebuked 
by  Congress.  It  was  held  by  many  that  the  action  of  Califor 
nia  was  a  "snap  judgment"  upon  the  South;  that,  taking  ad 
vantage  of  the  non-action  by  Congress,  the  people  of  Califor 
nia  had  been  induced  to  do;  that,  by  the  proceeding  of  estab 
lishing  a  state  government  and  the  adoption  of  a  Constitution 
prohibiting  slavery^which  Congress  had  positively  refused  to 
do,  and  which  Congress  had  not  the  power  to  do.  To  admit 
California  as  a  state,  to  recognize  the  "  usurpation"  of  sover 
eign  powers  by  her  people,  and  to  recognize  her  broad,  em 
phatic,  and  sweeping  prohibition  of  slavery,  by  which  the  peo 
ple  of  one  half  the  states  of  the  Union  were  to  be  forever  de 
nied  the  privilege  and  right  of  remaining  with  their  property 
upon  the  common  territory  of  all  the  states,  was  to  do  indi 
rectly  that  which  Congress  could  not  do  directly  without  giv 
ing  good  cause  for  a  withdrawal  from  the  Union  by  those  states 
thus  placed  upon  an  inequality  of  right  in  the  territories.  This 
was  the  argument  against  the  admission  of  California  as  far  as 
the  Slavery  question  was  involved.  But  that  was  only  one 
point  in  the  great  controversy.  The  majority  of  the  Northern 
members  elected  to  Congress  were  pledged  to  vote  for  the 
application  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso  to  all  the  territories  of  the 
United  States.  The  Texas  Boundary  question  was  another 
vexed  and  exciting  question.  Texas  claimed,  as  part  of  her 
territory,  a  vast  region  now  embraced  in  the  territorial  limits 
of  New  Mexico.  Texas  was  a  slaveholding  state.  To  admit 
her  claims  was  to  deliver  up  a  large  portion  of  "  free  soil"  to 
the  "slave  power."  In  the  general  excitement,  the  subjects 
of  the  local  traffic  in  slaves  and  the  continuance  of  ^lavery  in 
the  District  of  Columbia  were  agitated ;  and  last,  but  not  least, 
was  the  no  less  exciting,  and,  even  to  this  day,  hotly  contested 
claim  for  a  sufficient  law  to  enforce  the  constitutional  mandate 
for  the  rendition  of  fugitive  slaves.  Both  sides  had  demands, 
and  both  sides  were  determined  to  resist  the  demands  of  each 


126  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

other.  The  Supreme  Court  having  decided  that  it  was  not 
obligatory  on  the  part  of  the  states  to  provide  by  their  laws 
for  the  enforcement  of  the  rights  of  claimants  of  fugitive  slaves, 
the  existing  law  of  Congress  on  that  subject  was  clearly  insuf 
ficient.  Following  this  decision,  many  of  the  states  abolished 
all  laws  intended  to  aid  in  the  rendition  of  fugitives  from  serv 
ice;  others  passed  laws  prohibiting  their  officers  from  aiding 
in  any  such  cause. 

The  North — and,  when  we  use  the  terms  North  and  South 
in  this  matter,  we  mean  the  representatives  in  Congress  of  the 
extreme  sentiments  of  both  sections — the  North  required, 

1.  The  establishment  of  governments  for  all  the  territories 
of  the  United  States,  with  a  prohibition  of  slavery. 

2.  The  admission  of  California. 

3.  The  abolition  of  the  local  slave-trade  in  the  District  of 
Columbia. 

4.  The  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 
The  South  claimed: 

1.  An  efficient  fugitive  slave  act. 

2.  The  establishment  of  territorial  governments  for  all  the 
territories,  including  California,  but  without  a  prohibition  of 
slavery. 

The  Texas  Boundary  question  was  one  on  which  the  several 
parties  divided,  the  South  supporting  the  claims  of  Texas,  and 
the  North  insisting  that  the  disputed  territory  formed  part  of 
New  Mexico. 

State  Legislatures  had  passed  various  resolutions  during  the 
controversy,  taking  strong  grounds  upon  these  several  subjects. 
Most  of  the  Northern  states  had  instructed  their  senators  to 
vote  for  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  and  one  of  these  states  so  in 
structing  was  Illinois. 

When  Congress  met  in  December,  1849,  these  exciting  ques 
tions  were  fully  before  the  people.  General  Taylor  had  been 
elected  President  by  the  votes  of  the  most  ultra  anti-slavery 
states,  and  by  the  votes  of  the  most  ultra  Southern  states.  The 
two  extremes  had  rejected  the  wise,  and  safe,  and  only  practi 
cable  principle  of  General  Cass,  as  avowed  in  his  Nicholson  Let 
ter,  and  had  put  their  confidence  in  a  man  whose  views  were, 
to  speak  most  kindly,  unknown.  Massachusetts  and  Yermont 
had  voted  wTith  Georgia  and  Tennessee  ;  both  extremes  were 
sure  that  the  candidate  represented  their  respective  views. 
Somebody  was  to  be  undeceived. 


THE   COMPROMISE    OF    1850.  127 

Happily  for  the  country,  and  happily  for  the  peace  and  har 
mony  of  the  Union  which  he  had  so  long  and  so  nobly  served, 
and  upon  every  page  of  whose  history  for  half  a  century  his 
name  and  deeds  will  ever  stand  as  bright  as  the  brightest  and 
as  pure  as  the  purest,  HENRY  CLAY  had  come  forth  from  his 
retirement,  had  quit  the  peaceful  shades  of  Ashland,  once  more 
to  mingle  in  the  strife  of  contending  sections,  and  once  more 
by  his  magic  voice  to  quell  the  storm,  and  guide  the  hostile 
factions  into  one  common  path  of  peace  and  safety.  At  that 
time  the  Senate  was  in  its  zenith.  It  numbered  among  its 
members  men  whose  names  were  historical — Webster,  Phelps, 
Calhoun,  Benton,  Berrien,  King  (we  name  only  those  who  are 
no  longer  living),  each  was  i% himself  a  host,  whose  loss  can 
best  be  appreciated  by  stating  that  a  Sumner  now  represents 
Massachusetts,  and  an  Iverson  holds  the  seat  of  Berrien.  The 
list  of  senators  of  that  session  will  compare,  in  all  the  elements 
of  true  greatness,  with  that  of  the  same  number  of  men  in  any 
country  in  any  age.  The  House  of  Representatives  failed  for 
several  weeks  in  organizing.  At  last,  by  the  adoption  of  the 
plurality  rule,  on  the  22d  of  December,  Mr.  Cobb  was  elected 
speaker.  A  portion  of  the  North  would  not  vote  for  Mr.Win- 
throp  because  he  was  not  sufficiently  ultra  as  an  anti-slavery 
man,  and  a  portion  of  the  South  refused  to  vote  for  Mr.  Cobb 
because  he  was  not  ultra  enough  on  the  other  extreme. 

The  President's  message  was  received  a  few  days  later,  and 
the  country  were  advised  for  the  first  time  as  to  the  views  of 
the  administration  upon  the  Territorial  question.  The  Presi 
dent  recommended  to  the  favorable  consideration  of  Congress 
the  action  taken  by  the  people  of  California  for  admission  into 
the  Union.  He  also  recommended  that  Congress  should  ab 
stain  from  any  action  with  respect  to  the  Territory  of  New 
Mexico,  as  the  people  there  would,  at  no  distant  period,  pre 
sent  themselves  for  admission  into  the  Union.  This  message 
was  not  calculated  to  quiet  the  storm.  The  administration 
was  charged  with  having  instigated  the  proceedings  in  Cali 
fornia,  and  resolutions  calling  for  information  were  introduced 
into  both  houses.  These,  after  warm  discussion,  were  adopted. 

The  questions  at  issue  were  soon  brought  before  the  Senate 
in  a  variety  of  forms.  On  the  14th  of  January,  Mr.  Houston 
submitted  a  series  of  resolutions  covering  most  of  the  subjects. 
On  the  16th  Mr.  Benton  introduced  a  bill  proposing  to  Texas  a 


128  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

reduction  of  her  limits,  and  to  pay  her  fifteen  millions  of  dollars. 
On  the  same  day  Mr.  Foote  introduced  a  bill  establishing  ter 
ritorial  governments  for  California,  Deseret,  New  Mexico,  and 
to  enable  the  people  of  San  Jacinto  (a  new  state  to  be  formed 
out  of  Texas)  to  form  a  state  government.  And  Mr.  Butler, 
from  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  reported  a  Fugitive  Slave 
Bill.  On  the  8th  of  January  the  resolutions  of  the  State  of 
Vermont  upon  the  subject  of  slavery  were  presented,  and  the 
motion  to  print  them  was  objected  to.  In  December  a  resolu 
tion  tendering  the  apostle  of  temperance,  Father  Mathew,  the 
privilege  of  the  floor,  was  introduced,  was  debated — the  debate 
turning  exclusively  upon  the  anti-slavery  views  of  that  gentle 
man.  • 

On  the  29th  of  January  Mr.  Clay  submitted  his  famous  se 
ries  of  resolutions  proposing  a  plan  of  settlement  of  all  the  dis 
tracting  questions.  They  were  promptly  discussed. 

On  February  5th  and  6th  Mr.  Clay  addressed  the  Senate 
upon  the  subjects  embraced  in  his  resolutions.  On  the  13th 
of  the  same  month  the  President  communicated  to  the  Senate 
the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  California.  Mr.  Benton  sug 
gested  its  reference  to  a  select  committee.  Mr.  Foote  suggest 
ed  that  it  be  referred  to  a  select  committee  of  fifteen,  to  be  in 
structed  to  consider  all  the  questions  relating  to  slavery  in  the 
territories,  etc.  Mr.  Douglas  moved  to  refer  it  to  the  Com 
mittee  on  Territories,  of  which  he  was  chairman. 

On  February  25th  Mr.  Foote  offered  his  resolution  to  refer 
all  the  pending  resolutions,  etc.,  upon  the  subject  of  the  Terri 
tories,  Texas  Boundary,  California,  etc.,  to  a  select  committee 
of  thirteen.  He  stated  that  it  was  his  wish  that  this  commit 
tee  should  be  constituted  as  follows :  Mr.  Clay,  Chairman ; 
three  Northern  Whigs,  three  Northern  Democrats,  three  South 
ern  Whigs,  and  three  Southern  Democrats.  On  the  28th  of 
February  Mr.  Bell  submitted  a  series  of  resolutions  embracing 
a  plan  of  compromise. 

In  the  mean  time,  from  the  first  day  the  Senate  had  proceed 
ed  to  legislative  business,  Mr.  Hale  had  from  time  to  time  pre 
sented  petitions  praying  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  Terri 
tories,  others  praying  its  abolition  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
others  remonstrating  against  the  admission  of  slave  states,  etc., 
etc.  The  presentation  of  these  petitions  frequently  led  to  very 
exciting  discussions,  sometimes  consuming  the  entire  day's  sit- 


THE   COMPROMISE    OF    1850.  129 

ting.  They  were  generally  stopped  by  an  objection  to  their 
reception,  and  then  by  an  affirmative  vote  upon  laying  the  mo 
tion  to  receive  on  the  table.  The  debates  on  all  these  propo 
sitions  embraced  all  the  questions  involved  in  the  complicated 
series.  On  the  Yth  of  February  Mr.  Hale  presented  a  memo 
rial  praying  the  dissolution  of  the  Union.  A  debate  upon  its 
reception  took  place,  in  which  Mr.  Douglas  defined  his  posi 
tion  upon  the  subject  of  the  duty  of  Congress  to  receive  peti 
tions  generally,  and  particularly  upon  the  reception  of  petitions 
relating  to  slavery.  The  debate  on  this  question  was  contin 
ued  several  hours  on  several  successive  days.  Mr.  Douglas's 
remarks  will  be  found  elsewhere  in  this  volume. 

Mr.  Benton  having  moved  to  amend  Mr.  Douglas's  motion 
to  refer  the  President's  message  and  the  California  Constitution 
to  the  Committee  on  Territories,  by  adding  that  said  commit 
tee  be  instructed  to  report  a  bill  for  the  admission  of  Califor 
nia,  disconnected  with  any  other  subject  of  legislation,  and  this 
amendment  having  opened  up  on  that  motion  a  debate  upon 
the  general  subject  of  slavery  and  the  propriety  of  passing  a 
compromise  in  one  omnibus  bill,  Mr.  Douglas,  on  the  22d  of 
January,  moved  to  take  up  from  the  table  the  memorial  of  the 
people  of  Deseret  asking  a  state  or  territorial  government, 
and  refer  it  to  his  committee.  An  animated  debate  took  place 
— the  South  generally  urging  the  reference  to  the  Judiciary 
Committee.  The  motion,  however,  was  agreed  to — yeas  30, 
nays  20.  He  then  moved  to  refer  the  bill  introduced  by  Mr. 
Foote  to  the  same  committee,  and  this  motion  was  also  agreed 
to — yeas  25,  nays  22.  The  committee  now  had  the  entire  sub 
ject  before  them.  The  debates  on  the  general  subject  con 
tinued.  On  the  4th  of  March,  Mr.  Calhoun,  who  had  been  in 
failing  health  for  some  time,  appeared  in  the  Senate,  and  his 
last  great  speech  was  read  to  a  crowded  chamber  by  Mr. 
Mason.  Three  days  later,  on  March  7th,  Webster  made  his 
famous  speech,  and  the  spectre  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso  was 
banished.  From  that  day  forth  it  lost  its  terrors,  and  a  better 
feeling  prevailed.  There  were  no  longer  any  fears  of  its  adop 
tion,  and  the  attention  was  then  directed  to  some  broad,  na 
tional,  and  just  principle  which  should  be  adopted  as  a  final 
rule  in  all  like  cases.  On  March  14th  and  15th  Mr.  Doug 
las  addressed  the  Senate  upon  the  subject  of  the  admission 
of  California — a  speech  which,  for  argument  and  power,  will 

F  2 


130  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

compare  favorably  with  any  delivered  in  Congress  upon  that 
question. 

On  March  25th,  Mr.  Douglas,  from  the  Committee  on  Terri 
tories,  reported  bills  as  follows : 

"  A  bill  for  the  admission  of  the  State  of  California  into  the 
Union;" 

"  A  bill  to  establish  the  territorial  governments  of  Utah  and 
New  Mexico,  and  for  other  purposes ;"  which  bills  were  read, 
ordered  to  a  second  reading,  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

In  addition  to  all  the  resolutions  and  propositions  before  the 
Senate,  the  three  leading  questions  of  the  compromise  were 
now  before  the  body  in  the  shape  of  bills  ready  for  legislative 
action.  The  struggle  in  the  Senate  for  the  select  committee 
of  thirteen  was  animated  and  protracted.  For  a  long  time  it 
hung  in  doubtful  balance.  The  friends  of  that  measure  desired 
to  pass  all  the  subjects  embraced  in  one  bill.  To  this  there 
were  many  objections.  Mr.  Benton  was  particularly  strenuous 
in  his  opposition  to  any  proposition  having  for  its  object  the 
connection  of  the  admission  of  California  with  any  other  sub 
ject.  He  declared  it  an  indignity -to  couple  her  admission  with 
any  other  measure.  At  every  stage  of  the  motion  to  raise  the 
committee  of  thirteen,  he  presented  his  motion  to  except  from 
the  matters  referred  to  said  committee  the  question  of  the  ad 
mission  of  California.  When  his  amendments  were  voted 
down  in  one  form  he  proposed  them  in  another.  Mr.  Douglas 
was  one  of  those  who  had  doubted  the  expediency  of  uniting 
the  several  measures  in  one  bill.  But,  having  succeeded  in 
getting  the  matters  before  the  Senate  in  separate  bills,  and  as 
nothing  could  be  done  with  either  bill  as  long  as  a  majority 
of  the  Senate  desired  a  report  from  a  select  committee,  he 
urged  the  friends  of  the  California  Bill  to  allow  the  committee 
to  be  raised,  to  abandon  a  struggle  which  could  result  only  in 
a  delay  of  action.  Pending  these  measures,  on  the  31st  of 
March  Mr.  Calhoun's  death  took  place.  It  was  not  until  the 
18th  of  April  that  the  Senate  came  to  a  vote  upon  the  motion 
to  raise  the  select  committee  of  thirteen,  and  before  that  time 
the  several  memorable  scenes  between  Foote  and  Benton  took 
place.  The  vote  on  raising  the  committee  was,  yeas  30,  nays 
18.  On  the  19th  of  April  the  Senate  proceeded  to  ballot  for 
the  members  of  the  committee,  and 'the  following  senators  were 
elected : 


THE   COMPEOMISE    OF    1850.  131 

Mr.  Clay,  chairman ;  Messrs.  Cass,  Dickinson,  Bright,  Webster,  Phelps, 
Cooper,  King,  Mason,  Downs,  Mangum,  Bell,  Berrien. 

As  soon  as  the  committee  was  raised,  Mr.  Douglas  persist 
ently  presented  his  motion  to  take  up  the  bill  for  the  admis 
sion  of  California.  On  the  day  the  committee  was  elected  he 
made  the  motion  making  that  bill  the  special  order.  He  was 
sustained  by  Mr.  Clay;  but  a  committee  of  six  senators  having 
been  appointed  to  accompany  the  remains  of  Mr.  Calhoun  to 
South  Carolina,  Mr.  Clay  said  that  he  "wished  some  under 
standing  on  the  subject  of  taking  up  this  California  Bill  with 
the  senator  from  Illinois  and  the  Senate."  He  then  stated  that 
the  committee  of  six  were  about  leaving  the  city,  and  he  wish 
ed  some  understanding  that  the  bill,  during  the  absence  of 
these  six  members,  should  not  be  pressed  to  a  vote.  Mr. 
Douglas  promptly  responded  that  he  would  not  feel  authorized 
to  ask  a  vote  in  the  absence  of  the  committee  on  a  duty  like 
that.  His  only  object  was  to  have  the  bill  considered,  and, 
when  the  Senate  had  arrived  at  the  point  for  a  test  vote,  he 
would  defer  that  vote  until  the  committee  should  return.  To 
this  Mr.  Clay  said : 

"  Mr.  Clay.  That  is  exactly  in  conformity  with  the  liberal, 
manly  course  of  the  senator,  and,  with  that  understanding,  I 
hope  the  bill  will  be  taken  up." 

Mr.  Clay  gave  notice  on  that  same  day  that  he  would,  while 
the  bill  was  under  consideration,  move  to  add  to  it  provisions 
for  territorial  governments  and  for  the  adjustment  of  the  Texas 
Boundary ;  and,  in  explanation,  stated  that  the  amendments  he 
proposed  to  offer  were  "  the  bills  reported  by  the  senator  from 
Illinois,  and  which  have  already  been  printed."  Mr.  Benton 
gave  notice  that  he  would  resist  all  such  amendments ;  and  on 
the  22d, his  resolution  "that  the  said  committee  (of  thirteen) 
be  instructed  to  report  separately  upon  each  different  subject 
referred  to  it,  and  that  the  said  committee  tack  no  two  bills 
of  different  natures  together,  nor  join  in  the  same  bill  any  two 
or  more  subjects  which  are  in  their  nature  foreign,  incoherent, 
or  incongruous  to  each  other,"  was  taken  up  and  debated.  In 
the  course  of  that  debate,  Mr.  Cass,  a  member  of  the  commit 
tee,  said : 

"  Now,  sir,  I  think  it  quite  possible,  yea,  even  probable,  that 
the  committee  will  not  report  any  bill  at  all.  The  senator  (Mr. 
Benton),  then,  is  presupposing  a  state  of  things  which  may 


132  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

never  occur  at  all,  and  which  it  will  be  quite  time  enough  to 
discuss  when  it  does.  *  *  * 

"  It  is  perhaps  necessary  that  I  should  explain  what  I  said 
a  moment  ago.  I  merely  meant  that,  instead  of  reporting  a 
specific  bill  or  bills,  it  was  quite  possible  that  the  committee 
may  propose  amendments  to,  or  recommend  the  passage  of 
bills  now  before  the  Senate." 

The  probable  course  of  the  committee,  as  suggested  by  Mr. 
Cass,  was  the  one  favored  by  the  distinguished  chairman  of 
that  committee.  It  was  not  his  intention  then,  and  not  until 
after  his  report  was  written,  to  report  a  bill  that  would  include 
the  admission  of  California  or  governments  for  the  Territories. 
Whoever  will  turn  to  the  report  of  the  select  committee  will 
see  that  it  recommends  the  passage  of  the  bill  reported  from 
the  Committee  on  Territories  for  that  purpose,  and  that  the 
bill  reported  from  the  same  committee,  establishing  territorial 
governments  for  New  Mexico  and  Utah,  making  proposals  to 
Texas  for  the  settlement  of  her  boundaries,  should  be  added 
by  the  Senate  to  the  California  Bill,  and  all  passed  as  one  meas 
ure.  In  the  report  no  mention  is  made  of  any  bill  agreed  upon 
by  the  committee,  except  one  to  abolish  the  slave-trade  in  the 
District  of  Columbia. 

How  Mr.  Clay  came  to  change  his  determination  in  this  re 
spect  may  possibly  be  explained  by  stating  the  substance  of  a 
conversation  between  him  and  Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  Clay  made 
his  report  on  Wednesday,  the  8th  of  May.  On  Tuesday,  the 
7th,  Mr.  Clay  and  Mr.  Douglas  met  in  the  Senate  Chamber,  and, 
after  an  exchange  of  friendly  greetings  and  some  conversation 
on  indifferent  subjects,  Mr.  Douglas  inquired  of  Mr.  Clay  wiien 
he  would  report  his  Compromise  Bill.  Mr.  Clay  said  that  he 
should  present  an  elaborate  report  upon  all  the  subjects  before 
the  committee,  in  which  would  be  recommended  that  the  Sen 
ate  should  unite  the  two  bills,  California  and  Territorial,  which 
Mr.  Douglas  had  previously  reported  from  the  Committee  on 
Territories,  and  pass  them  in  one  act ;  but  he  should  report 
no  bill  on  those  subjects  from  his  committee.  Mr.  Douglas 
asked  why  Mr.  Clay  did  not  himself  unite  the  two  bills  and 
report  them  from  the  select  committee  as  their  bill ;  to  which 
Mr.  Clay  promptly  answered,  that  such  a  course  would  not  be 
just  or  fair  toward  Mr.  Douglas,  the  author  of  those  bills,  par 
ticularly  after  having  had  all  the  labor,  and  having  prepared 


THE   COMPROMISE    OF    1850.  133 

them  in  a  form  so  perfect  that  he  (Mr.  Clay)  could  not  change 
them  in  any  particular  for  the  better ;  hence,  continued  Mr. 
Clay,  as  a  matter  of  justice  toward  Mr.  Douglas,  he  intended 
to  recommend  to  the  Senate  to  take  up  the  bills  as  they  stood, 
and,  after  uniting  them,  pass  them  without  change. 

Mr.  Douglas  at  once  stated  that  he  had  no  such  pride  in  the 
mere  authorship  of  the  measures  as  to  induce  him  to  desire 
that  the  select  committee,  out  of  regard  to  him,  should  omit 
adopting  that  course  which  would  or  might  possibly  best  ac 
complish  the  great  object  in  view.  Moreover,  there  was  an 
other  reason,  which  he  regarded  as  of  the  very  highest  im 
portance,  why  the  select  committee  should  report  to  the  Sen 
ate  the  bills  united  into  one.  It  was  his  opinion  they  could 
never  pass  the  two  houses  of  Congress  as  a  joint  measure,  be 
cause  the  union  of  them  would  unite  the  Opposition  to  the 
several  measures  without  uniting  their  respective  friends ;  the 
bill  for  the  admission  of  California,  as  a  separate  measure, 
would  receive  all  the  votes  from  the  North,  and  enough  from 
the  South  to  secure  its  passage ;  while  the  Territorial  Bills,  if 
not  connected  with  the  California  Bill,  could  receive  nearly  all 
the  Southern  votes,  with  a  sufficient  number  from  the  North 
to  secure  their  passage  through  both  houses  of  Congress. 
For  this  reason,  he  urged  that,  if  the  bills  were  to  be  united  at 
all,  they  should  be  united  by  the  select  committee,  and  in  that 
form  reported  to  the  Senate  as  the  action  of  that  committee. 
If  that  course  were  adopted  by  the  select  committee,  the  Sen 
ate  would  have  the  several  measures  before  them  in  two  forms 
— one  as  separate  measures,  and  the  other  as  a  joint  measure, 
and  thus  all  the  chances  of  success  would  be  secured ;  for, 
in  the  event  of  the  defeat  of  the  joint  measure,  the  friends  of 
the  Compromise  could  fall  back  upon  the  bills  separately.  If 
united  in  the  Senate,  and  then  defeated,  all  would  be  defeated. 

Mr.  Clay  acknowledged  the  full  force  of  this  reasoning,  but 
repeated  that  to  take  the  bills  of  Mr.  Douglas  and  report  them 
as  the  great  Compromise  Bill,  prepared  by  the  select  commit 
tee,  would  bo  unjust  to  their  author,  who  was  entitled  to  all 
the  honor  of  preparing  them. 

Mr.  Douglas  then  said :  "  I  respectfully  ask  you,  Mr.  Clay, 
what  right  have  you,  to  whom  the  country  looks  for  so  much, 
and  as  an  eminent  statesman  having  charge  of  a  great  measure 
for  the  pacification  of  a  distracted  country,  to  sacrifice  to  any 


134  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

extent  the  chances  of  success  on  a  mere  punctilio  as  to  whom 
the  credit  may  belong  of  having  first  written  the  bills  ?  I,  sir, 
waive  all  claim  and  personal  consideration  in  this  matter,  and 
insist  that  the  committee  shall  pursue  that  course  which  they 
may  deem  best  calculated  to  accomplish  the  great  end  we  all 
have  in  view,  without  regard  to  any  interest  merely  personal 
to  me." 

Mr.  Clay  (extending  his  hand  to  Mr.  Douglas).  "  You  are 
the  most  generous  man  living.  I  will  unite  the  bills  and  re 
port  them ;  but  justice  shall  nevertheless  be  done  to  you  as 
the  real  author  of  the  measures." 

The  next  morning  Mr.  Clay  presented  his  report,  and  also 
reported  the  bill  subsequently  known  as  the  "  Omnibus  Bill," 
being  a  bill  consisting  of  Mr.  Douglas's  two  bills  attached  to 
gether  by  a  wafer.  Extracts  from  subsequent  debates  will 
be  found  in  this  volume,  and  will  show,  to  the  satisfaction 
of  all,  who  was  the  author  of  the  compromise  acts  of  1850  re 
lating  to  territorial  questions.  True  to  his  promise,  Mr.  Clay 
subsequently  bore  honorable  testimony  to  the  ability,  fairness, 
and  patriotism  displayed  by  Mr.  Douglas  throughout  that  long 
and  memorable  session. 

The  only  change  made  by  the  select  committee  in  the  Ter 
ritorial  Bill  was  to  insert  in  the  sections  defining  the  powders 
of  the  Territorial  Legislature  the  words  "  nor  in  respect  to  Af 
rican  slavery."  The  effect  of  this  amendment  was  to  deny  to 
the  Legislature  of  the  Territories  the  privilege  or  authority  to 
legislate  upon  the  subject  of  African  slavery. 

On  May  13th  Mr.  Clay  addressed  the  Senate  in  support  of 
the  bill.  On  the  15th,  Mr.  Douglas,  with  a  view  of  saving 
time,  by  ascertaining  at  once  the  sense  of  the  Senate  as  to 
whether  the  questions  involved  in  controversy  should  be  con 
sidered  upon  the  Omnibus  Bill  or  upon  the  separate  bills, 
moved,  as  a  test  question  on  that  point,  to  lay  Mr.  Clay's  bill 
on  the  table.  The  motion  was  rejected — yeas  24,  nays  28. 
The  Senate  having  thus  decided  to  consider  the  general  bill  in 
preference  to  the  separate  measures,  the  former  thenceforth, 
and  until  its  fate  was  accomplished,  occupied  the  consideration 
of  the  Senate  to  the  exclusion  of  the  bills  of  the  Committee  on 
Territories. 

Mr.  Jefferson  Davis  moved  to  amend  the  bill  so  as  to  re 
strain  the  Legislature  from  interfering  "  with  those  rights  of 


THE   COMPROMISE    OF    1850.  135 

property  growing  out  of  the  institution  of  African  slavery  as 
it  exists  in  any  of  the  states  of  the  Union." 

This  amendment  provoked  considerable  discussion.  It  was 
originally  proposed  on  the  15th  of  May;  on  the  next  day  it 
was  modified  so  as  to  leave  in  the  section  the  prohibition  of 
any  legislation  in  respect  to  African  slavery,  but  declaring  that 
nothing  in  the  bill  should  be  construed  as  preventing  the  Ter 
ritorial  Legislature  from  passing  such  laws  or  providing  such 
remedies  as  may  protect  the  owners  of  African  slaves  in  said 
Territory  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  property,  etc.  On  the  22d 
of  May,  at  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Pratt,  Mr.  Davis  farther  mod 
ified  his  proposed  amendment  so  as  to  declare  that  the  Terri 
torial  Legislature  shall  not  pass  any  law  "  to  introduce  or  ex 
clude  African  slavery ;"  providing  also  that  nothing  in  the 
act  contained  should  prevent  the  Territorial  Legislature  from 
"  passing  such  laws  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  protection  of 
the  rights  of  property  of  any  kind  which  may  have  been,  or 
may  be  hereafter,  lawfully  introduced  into  said  Territory." 

On  the  3d  of  June  the  amendment  was  warmly  debated ; 
but,  as  the  question  involved  was  renewed  some  weeks  later, 
the  extracts  from  the  speeches  made  upon  the  question  of  the 
power  of  the  Territorial  Legislature  to  legislate  upon  the  sub 
ject  of  African  slavery,  both  at  this  as  well  as  the  later  pe 
riod  of  the  debate,  will  be  found  grouped  together  on  a  sub 
sequent  page.  On  the  5th  of  June,  the  amendment  of  Mr. 
Davis,  which  prohibited  the  Legislature  from  introducing  or 
excluding  slavery,  but  authorized  them  to  pass  laws  to  protect 
slave  property  there,  was  rejected — yeas  25,  nays  30.  The  bill 
stood  as  reported  by  the  committee  of  thirteen,  including  the 
words  "  nor  in  respect  to  African  slavery." 

Mr.  Berrien  moved  to  amend  by  making  the  clause  read, 
"  But  no  law  shah1  be  passed  interfering  with  the  primary  dis 
position  of  the  soil,  nor  establishing  or  prohibiting  African 
slavery."  And  that  amendment  was  agreed  to  —  yeas  30, 
nays  27. 

Mr.  Douglas  then  moved  to  strike  out  the  words  "  nor  es 
tablishing  or  prohibiting  African  slavery."  And  the  motion 
was  rejected — yeas  21,  nays  33,  as  follows : 

Yeas — Bradbury,  Cass,  Chase,  Clarke,  Clay,  Cooper,  Corwin,  Dickinson, 
Dodge  of  Iowa,  Douglas,  Felch,  Greene,  Hamlin,  Jones,  Miller,  Norris,  Sew- 
ard,  Shields,  Sturgeon,  Underwood,  and  Upham. 


136  LIFE    OP   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

Nays — Atchison,  Badger,  Baldwin,  Bell,  Benton,  Berrien,  Borland,  Bright, 
Butler,  Clemens,  Davis  of  Mississippi,  Dawson,  Dodge  of  Wisconsin,  Downs, 
Foote,  Hale,  Houston,  Hunter,  King,  Mangum,  Mason,  Morton,  Pearce, 
Pratt,  Rusk,  Sebastian,  Soule,  Spruance,  Turney,  Walker,  Webster,  Whit- 
comb,  Yulee. 

So  the  bill  stood  with  the  prohibition  on  the  powers  of  the 
Territorial  Legislature. 

In  the  mean  time  the  Wilrnot  Proviso,  in  every  imaginable 
shape,  was  offered  as  an  amendment  to  the  bill,  and  always 
voted  down.  If  every  motion  to  insert  it  be  not  mentioned, 
the  reader  will  not  understand  by  the  omission  that  it  was  not 
submitted  on  every  ^  possible  occasion  by  its  advocates  and 
friends.  Mr.  Douglas,  for  reasons  stated  on  a  subsequent  page, 
voted  for  these  amendments  whenever  offered^ 

The  debate  progressed.  On  the  14th  of  June,  Mr.  Turney, 
of  Tennessee,  moved  to  strike  out  all  that  part  of  the  bill  re 
lating  to  the  Texas  Boundary.  Lost — yeas  24,  nays  27,  the 
senators  from  Texas  voting  in  the  negative.  On  the  15th  of 
June  Mr.  Soule  moved  to  insert  the  following  clause  in  that 
part  of  the  bill  relating  to  Utah : 

"And  when  the  said  Territory,  or  any  portion  of  the  same, 
shall  be  admitted  as  a  state,  it  shall  be  received  into  the  Union 
with  or  without  slavery,  as  their  Constitution  may  prescribe  at 
the  time  of  their  admission." 

This  amendment  was  debated  for  three  days,  and  on  the 
1 7th  it  was  adopted  by  the  following  vote  : 

Yeas — Atchison,  Badger,  Bell,  Benton,  Berrien,  Bright,  Butler,  Cass,  Clay, 
Clemens,  Cooper,  Davis  of  Mississippi,  Dawson,  Dodge  of  Iowa,  Douglas, 
Downs,  Foote,  Houston,  Hunter,  Jones,  King,  Mason,  Morton,  Norris, 
Pearce,  Pratt,  Rusk,  Sebastian,  Shields,  Soule,  Spruance,  Sturgeon,  Turney, 
Underwood,  Wales,  Webster,  Whitcomb,  Yulee — 38. 

Nays — Baldwin  of  Connecticut,  Chase  of  Ohio,  Clarke  of  Rhode  Island, 
Davis  of  Massachusetts,  Dayton,  of  New  Jersey,  Dodge  of  Wisconsin,  Greene 
of  Rhode  Island,  Hale  of  New  Hampshire,  Miller  of  New  Jersey,  Smith  of 
Connecticut,  Upham  of  Vermont,  Walker  of  Wisconsin — 12. 

Pending  this  amendment,  Mr.  Douglas  stated  why  a  provi 
sion  of  that  kind  had  not  originally  been  placed  in  the  bill,  and 
also  the  reasons  why  he  had  voted  on  several  previous  occa 
sions  for  the  Wihnot  Proviso. 

He  said : 

"I  shall  vote  for  this  amendment,  not  because  I  believe  it  confers  any  new 
right  upon  the  people  of  the  Territories,  or  modifies  the  terms  of  any  old  right 
which  they  possess.  I  shall  vote  for  it  as  the  assertion  of  a  principle  which 
is  already  in  the  Constitution,  and  which  I  believe  would  be  implied,  and  be 
equally  valid,  if  not  here  expressed.  I  would  not  deem  it  necessary  to  ex- 


THE   COMPROMISE    OF    1850.  137 

press  it  again  but  for  the  fact  that  the  amendment  has  been  offered,  and  but 
for  the  farther  fact  that  I  have  heard,  to  my  surprise,  the  doctrine  that  the 
people,  when  they  come  to  form  a  state  government,  have  a  right  to  do  as 
they  please  in  moulding  their  domestic  institutions  questioned  in  some  quar 
ters. 

"If  it  is  questioned,  I  see  no  reason  why  we  should  not  express,  when  it 
comes  in  our  way,  what  we  believe  to  be  the  true  constitutional  doctrine. 
I  believe  the  people  have  a  right  to  do  as  they  please  when  they  form  their 
Constitution,  and,  no  matter  what  domestic  regulations  they  may  make,  they 
have  a  right  to  come  into  the  Union,  provided  there  is  nothing  in  their  Con 
stitution  which  violates  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Believing 
that,  I  shall  vote  for  the  amendment,  in  order  that  the  Senate  may  express 
its  opinion  in  this  bill.  I  have  always  held  that  the  people  have  a  right  to 
settle  these  questions  as  they  choose,  not  only  when  they  come  into  the  Union 
as  a  state,  BUT  THAT  THEY  SHOULD  BE  PERMITTED  TO  DO  so  WHILE  A  TERRI 
TORY. 

"  If  I  have  ever  recorded  a  vote  contrary  to  that  principle,  even  as  applica 
ble  to  Territories,  it  was  done  under  the  influence  of  the  pressure  of  an  au 
thority  higher  than  my  own  will.  Each  and  every  vote  that  I  have  given 
contrary  to  that  principle  is  the  vote  of  those  who  sent  me  here,  and  not  my 
own.  I  have  faithfully  obeyed  my  instructions,  in  letter  and  in  spirit,  to  the 
fullest  extent.  They  were  confined  to  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  Terri 
tories  while  they  remained  Territories,  and  leaving  the  people  to  do  as  they 
please  when  they  shall  be  admitted  into  the  Union  as  states.  The  vote 
which  I  am  now  about  to  give  is  entirely  consistent  with  those  instructions. 
I  repeat  that,  according  to  my  view  of  this  subject,  all  these  vexed  questions 
ought  to  be  left  to  the  people  of  the  States  and  Territories  interested,  and  that 
any  vote  which  I  have  given,  or  may  give,  inconsistent  with  this  principle, 
will  be  the  vote  of  those  who  gave  the  instructions,  and  not  my  own." 

The  part  of  the  bill  proposing  terms  to  Texas  for  the  ad 
justment  of  the  boundaries  between  that  state  and  the  Terri 
tory  of  New  Mexico  was  the  most  embarrassing  and  perplex 
ing.  It  was  debated  almost  every  day.  As  Mr.  Rusk  said,  it 
was  the  first  thing  discussed  each  morning,  and  the  last  at 
night.  Mr.  Clay  had  left  a  blank  in  the  bill  for  the  amount  of 
money  to  be  paid  to  Texas,  and  he  was  questioned  and  assail 
ed  in  every  way  to  name  the  sum  with  which  he  intended  to 
fill  that  blank.  He  parried  all  efforts  to  draw  him  out  on  that 
subject,  declaring  that,  when  the  bill  had  reached  its  last  stage, 
he  would  move  to  fill  the  blank.  As  a  matter  of  history,  it 
may  be  here  stated  that  the  proper  time  never  arrived,  and 
the  "  omnibus  broke  down"  with  that  blank  unfilled.  On  the 
19th  of  June  Mr.  Underwood  moved  to  strike  out  all  the  sec 
tions  of  the  bill  relating  to  the  Texas  Boundary,  and  to  insert 
a  provision  authorizing  the  determination  of  the  boundary  by 
a  suit  in  the  Supreme  Court.  This  was  eventually  rejected. 
On  the  20th  Mr.  Berrien  moved  to  limit  the  representation  of 
California  in  the  House  of  Representatives  to  one  member,  and 


138  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

providing  that  that  representative,  as  well  as  the  senators, 
should  be  chosen  after  the  passage  of  the  bill.  Upon  this 
proposition  Mr.  Douglas  vindicated  the  justice  of  allowing 
California  her  two  members  in  the  House,  and  of  admitting 
them  at  once  to  their  seats  upon  the  passage  of  the  bill.  The 
motion  was  lost — yeas  12,  nays  28. 

On  June  24th  and  25th  Mr.  Soule  advocated  with  great 
power  and  eloquence  an  amendment  postponing  the  admission 
of  California  until  that  state  had  by  an  ordinance  relinquished 
all  title  or  claim  to  tax,  dispose  of,  or  interfere  with  the  prima 
ry  disposal  of  the  public  domain  by  the  United  States  within 
her  limits ;  that  she  would  not  interfere  with  the  United  States 
in  the  control  of  the  mining  regions,  etc. ;  that  the  navigable 
waters  should  be  open  and  free  to  all  citizens  of  the  United 
States ;  and  that  the  southern  boundary  of  the  state  shall  be 
restricted  to  the  line  of  36°  30'  north  latitude. 

On  the  26th,  and  again  on  the  28th,  Mr.  Douglas  replied  to 
this  speech  of  Mr.  Soule,  demonstrating  that  the  argument  that, 
unless  this  ordinance  was  adopted  by  California  previous  to 
her  admission,  the  public  lands  and  mines  would  escheat  to 
that  state,  was  wholly  unsound.  His  speech  was  thorough  and 
complete.  It  reviewed  the  entire  history  of  the  policy,  as  well 
as  the  possessory  right  of  the  government  of  the  United  States 
to  the  public  domain,  wherever  situated,  whether  in  state  or 
territory.  The  limits  of  this  work  will  not  admit  the  publica 
tion  here  of  this  speech  in  full,  and  to  abbreviate  it  would  de 
stroy  its  force.  The  speech  was  deemed  so  conclusive  upon 
the  points  embraced  in  it  that  it  was  printed  in  pamphlet,  and 
thousands  of  copies  of  it  were  circulated,  particularly  in  Cali 
fornia. 

The  amendment  was  rejected — yeas  19,  nays  36. 

Mr.  Jefferson  Davis  about  this  period  offered  an  amendment 
proposing  to  repeal  or  annul  all  the  Mexican  laws,  customs, 
etc.,  which,  existing  previous  to  the  acquisition  of  the  territory, 
prohibited  or  abolished  slavery.  This  was  rejected — yeas  18, 
nays  30 ;  every  northern  Democrat  who  voted  voting  in  the 
negative. 

On  the  9th  of  July — the  intervening  time  having  been  oc 
cupied  in  speeches  mainly  against  the  bill — Mr.  Butler  was  ad 
dressing  the  Senate,  when  he  was  interrupted  by  Mr.  Webster, 
who,  in  appropriate  terms,  announced  the  dying  condition  of 


THE   COMPKOMISE    OF   1850.  139 

President  Taylor.  The  Senate  adjourned,  and  the  considera 
tion  of  the  Compromise  Bill  was  not  resumed  until  the  15th  of 
July.  On  that  day  it  was  taken  out  of  Committee  of  the 
Whole  and  reported  to  the  Senate,  and  the  amendments  were 
concurred  in.  Mr.  Benton  then  commenced  an  active  war  upon 
the  bill  by  proposing  amendments,  particularly  to  that  part  re 
lating  to  the  adjustment  of  the  boundary  of  Texas.  On  July 
17  Mr.  Webster  made  an  elaborate  speech  in  favor  of  the  bill 
— the  last  speech  delivered  by  him  in  the  Senate.  On  the  22d 
the  Senate  was  notified  of  the  resignations  of  Messrs.  Webster 
and  Corwin,  who  had  accepted  places  in  Mr.  Fillmore's  cabi 
net.  They  were  soon  succeeded  by  Messrs.  Winthrop  and 
Ewing,  both  opponents  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  King,  of  Alabama,  moved  to  amend  the  bill  by  making 
the  admission  of  California  conditional  with  the  establishment 
of  her  southern  boundary  on  the  line  of  35°  30'  north  latitude. 
Mr.  Jefferson  Davis  moved  to  make  the  line  36°  30'. 

Both  propositions  were  rejected — 36°  30'  by  a  vote  of  32  to 
23,  and  35°  30'  by  a  vote  of  37  to-  20. 

Mr.  Bradbury,  of  Maine,  on  the  23d  of  July  moved  to  strike 
out  of  the  bill  all  relating  to  the  adjustment  of  the  Texas  bound 
ary,  and  to  insert  a,  section  providing  for  the  appointment  of 
commissioners  by  the  United  States  and  by  Texas,  who  were 
to  ascertain  and  agree  upon  a  boundary,  and  report  the  same, 
which,  if  agreed  to  by  the  United  States  and  by  Texas,  was  to 
be  binding  upon  both  parties. 

Mr.  Benton  and  other  senators  proposed  various  amend 
ments  to  Mr.  Bradbury's  proposition,  all  of  which  were  reject 
ed,  and  finally  that  proposition,  on  the  29th  of  July,  was  reject 
ed — yeas  29,  nays  29  ;  both  senators  from  Texas  voting  in  the 
negative. 

Mr.  Seward  submitted  an  amendment  admitting  ISTew  Mexi 
co  as  a  state,  and  supported  it  in  a  long  speech  which  provoked 
an  angry  and  excited  debate.  This  was  rejected — yeas  1, 
nays  42. 

Mr.  Bradbury  then  renewed  his  amendment,  having  slightly 
modified  it.  The  debate  was  renewed,  and  proceeded  with 
great  feeling,  the  bill  evidently  having  approached  a  crisis. 
Mr.  Walker  moved,  on  the  30th,  that  the  bill  be  laid  on  the  ta 
ble;  lost — yeas  25,  nays  32.  Mr.Dawson  moved  to  amend 
the  proposition  of  Mr.  Bradbury  by  providing  that  during  the 


140  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

proceedings  of  the  Boundary  Commission  the  territorial  gov 
ernment  provided  in  the  bill  should  not  go  into  operation  in 
that  part  of  the  Territory  lying  east  of  the  Rio  Grande,  being 
the  territory  in  dispute. 

This  proviso  was  agreed  to,  and  Mr.  Bradbury's  proposition, 
as  amended,  was  then  inserted  in  lieu  of  the  sections  of  the  bill 
containing  the  proposals  to  Texas  for  the  adjustment  of  her 
boundary — yeas  30,  nays  28. 

POWER    OF   THE   TERRITORIAL   LEGISLATURES AGAIN. 

At  this  stage  of  the  bill  Mr.  Norris  moved  to  strike  out  the 
words  which  prohibited  the  Territorial  Legislature  from  pass 
ing  any  law  "  establishing  or  prohibiting  African  slavery,"  the 
object  of  the  amendment  being  to  leave  the  Territorial  Legisla 
ture  as  free  to  pass  laws  upon  that  question  as  upon  any  other 
"  rightful  subject  of  legislation."  In  order  to  show  that  the 
object  in  placing  in  the  bill  the  restriction  was  to  deny  the 
power  and  the  authority  of  the  Territorial  Legislature  to  legis 
late  upon  that  matter,  and  the  object  in  moving  to  strike  it  out 
was  to  recognize  and  admit  such  a  power  and  authority  in  the 
Legislature,  and  that  these  objects  were  fully  understood  by 
all  parties,  and  also  to  show  what  was  the  final  decision  of  the 
Senate  upon  this  point,  which  has  become  so  important  in  the 
political  discussions  of  the  present  day,  extracts  from  some  of 
the  speeches  delivered  upon  the  subject  are  here  inserted. 

FROM  THE  DEBATE  ON  MR.  DAVIS'S  AMENDMENT — MR,  DOUGLAS, 
OF   ILLINOIS. 

I  wish  to  say  one  word  before  this  part  of  the  bill  is  voted  upon.  I  must 
confess  that  I  rather  regretted  that  a  clause  had  been  introduced  into  this 
bill  providing  that  the  territorial  governments  should  not  legislate  in  respect 
to  African  slavery.  The  position  that  I  have  ever  taken  has  been,  that  this 
and  all  other  questions  relating  to  the  domestic  affairs  and  domestic  policy 
of  the  Territories  ought  to  be  left  to  the  decision  of  the  people  themselves,  and 
that  we  ought  to  be  content  with  whatever  way  they  may  decide  the  ques 
tion,  because  they  have  a  much  deeper  interest  in  these  matters  than  we 
have,  and  know  much  better  what  institutions  suit  them  than  we,  who  have 
never  been  there,  can  decide  for  them.  I  would,  therefore,  have  much  pre 
ferred  that  that  portion  of  the  bill  should  have  remained  as  it  was  reported 
from  the  Committee  on  Territories,  with  no  provision  on  the  subject  of  slavery 
the  one  way  or  the  other ;  and  I  do  hope  yet  that  that  clause  in  the  bill  will 
be  stricken  out.  I  am  satisfied,  sir,  that  it  gives  no  strength  to  the  bill;  I 
am  satisfied,  even  if  it  did  give  strength  to  it,  that  it  ought  not  to  be  there, 
because  it  is  a  violation  of  principle — A  VIOLATION  OF  THAT  PRINCIPLE  UPON 

WHICH    WE    HAVE   ALL    RESTED    OUR    DEFENSE    OF   THE    COURSE    WE    HAVE 


THE   COMPEOMISE    OF    1850.  141 

TAKEN  ON  THIS  QUESTION.  I  do  not  see  how  those  of  us  who  have  taken  the 
position  which  we  have  taken  (that  of  non-interference),  and  have  argued  in 
favor  of  the  right  of  the  people  to  legislate  for  themselves  on  this  question, 
can  support  such  a  provision  without  abandoning  all  the  arguments  which 
we  urged  in  the  presidential  campaign  in  the  year  1848,  and  the  principles 
set  forth  by  the  honorable  senator  from  Michigan  in  that  letter  which  is 
known  as  the  "  Nicholson  Letter."  We  are  required  to  abandon  that  plat 
form  ;  we  are  required  to  abandon  those  principles,  and  to  stultify  ourselves, 
and  to  adopt  the  opposite  doctrine,  and  what  for  ?  In  order  to  say  that  the 
people  of  the  Territories  shall  not  have  such  institutions  as  they  shall  deem 
adapted  to  their  condition  and  their  wants.  I  do  not  see,  sir,  how  such  a 
provision  as  that  can  be  acceptable  either  to  the  people  of  the  North  or  South. 
Besides,  it  settles  nothing;  it  leaves  it  a  matter  of  doubt  and  uncertainty 
what  is  to  be  the  condition  of  things  under  the  bill ;  and,  whatever  shall  be 
ascertained  to  be  the  condition  in  respect  to  slavery,  it  may  turn  out  that, 
while  the  law  is  held  to  be  one  way,  the  people  of  the  Territory  are  unanimous 
the  other  way.  And,  sir,  is  an  institution  to  be  fixed  upon  a  people  in  opposi 
tion  to  their  unanimous  opinion  ?  Or  are  the  people,  by  our  action  here,  to 
be  deprived  of  a  law  which  they  unanimously  desire,  and  yet  have  no  power 
to  remedy  the  evil  ?  I,  for  one,  think  that  such  ought  not  to  be  the  case. 
In  my  own  opinion,  I  have  no  doubt  as  to  what  the  law  would  be  under  that 
provision ;  but  if  I  were  left  to  the  exercise  of  my  own  judgment  and  to 
carry  out  my  own  principles,  I  desire  no  provision  whatever  in  respect  to  the 
institution  of  slavery  in  the  Territories.  I  wish  to  leave  the  people  of  the  Ter 
ritories  free  to  enact  just  such  laws  as  they  please  in  respect  to  this  institu 
tion.  On  this  one  point  I  am  not  left  to  follow  my  own  judgment  nor  my 
own  desire.  I  am  to  express  the  will  of  my  constituents  which  has  been 
solemnly  pronounced.  My  vote,  sir,  will  be  in  accordance  with  their  instruc 
tions  ;  but  I  desire  that  that  vote  shall  be  given  upon  the  direct  question ;  to 
come  fairly  up  to  these  instructions,  and  not  to  this  indirect  mode,  which 
settles  nothing,  whether  it  is  adopted  or  rejected. 

ME.  DAVIS,  OF   MISSISSIPPI. 

******** 
A  word  now  to  the  senator  from  Illinois  (Mr.  Douglas).  It  is  to  his  argu 
ment  that  I  address  myself.  The  difference  between  that  senator  and  my 
self  consists  in  who  are  a  people.  The  senator  says  that  the  inhabitants  of 
a  Territory  have  a  right  to  decide  what  their  institutions  shall  be.  When  ? 
By  what  authority  ?  How  many  of  them  ?  Does  the  senator  tell  me,  as  he 
said  once  before,  from  the  authority  of  God  ?  Then  one  man  goes  into  a 
Territory  and  establishes  the  fundamental  law  for  all  time  to  come.  It  would 
then  be  unquestionably  the  unanimous  opinion  of  what  that  law  should  be ; 
and  are  all  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  joint  owners  of  that  Territory,  to 
be  excluded  because  one  man  chooses  to  exclude  all  others  who  might  come 
there  ?  That  is  the  doctrine  carried  out  to  its  fullest  extent.  I  claim  that  a 
people  having  sovereignty  over  a  Territory  should  have  power  to  decide  what 
their  institutions  shall  be.  That  is  the  Democratic  doctrine,  as  I  have  al 
ways  understood  it,  and  under  our  Constitution  the  inhabitants  of  the  Terri 
tories  acquire  that  right  whenever  the  United  .States  surrender  the  sovereign 
ty  to  them  by  consenting  that  they  shall  become  states  of  the  Union,  and 
they  have  no  such  right  before.  The  difference,  then,  between  the  senator 
from  Illinois  and  myself  is  the  point  at  which  the  people  do  possess  and  may  as 
sert  this  right.  It  is  not  the  inhabitants  of  the  Territory,  but  the  people  as 
a  political  body — the  people  organized — who  have  the  right ;  and  on  be 
coming  a  state,  by  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  exercising  sovereign 
ty  over  the  Territory,  they  may  establish  a  fundamental  law  for  all  time  to 


142  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

come.  Then,  again,  the  senator  states  what,  during  the  last  presidential 
canvass,  was  his  position  in  relation  to  the  doctrine  of  non-intervention.  I 
am  sorry  to  hear  him  state  it  as  he  has.  If  non-intervention  means  that  the 
government  shall  refuse  protection  to  property,  then,  sir,  upon  what  basis 
rests  the  right  of  taxation ;  whence  arises  the  claim  to  personal  service  of 
citizens  ?  There  must  be  mutual  obligations — support  from  one,  protection  to 
the  other.  Whatever  section  has  its  property  excluded  from  this  protection 
by  the  government  has  a  right,  from  that  day  forth,  to  withhold  all  farther 
support.  What  claim,  sir,  has  the  government  to  the  assistance  and  support 
of  the  citizens  if  it  refuses  them  protection  ?  And  what  are  all  the  great 
principles  of  our  Constitution  if  they  are  transferred  to  a  government  with 
out  power  to  use  them  ?  If  this  federal  government,  to  which  the  states  have 
transferred  their  authority  over  the  property  belonging  to  them  in  the  Terri 
tories  of  the  United  States,  is  stopped  by  such  a  principle  as  is  here  declared 
by  the  senator  from  Illinois  from  exercising  that  authority,  I  wrould  ask  what 
is  the  value  of  the  trust  ?  It  stands  at  the  mercy  of  every  group  of  men  who 
mav  find  themselves  conglomerated  in  any  Territory  of  the  United  States,  and 
is  rendered  unable  to  discharge  the  trust  which  has  been  conferred  upon  it. 
Willing  or  unwilling,  as  the  case  may  be,  to  render  that  justice  to  one  part 
of  the  owners  of  the  public  domain  which  another  receives,  and  all  have  an 
equal  right  to  demand. 

Mr.  Douglas.  The  senator  from  Mississippi  puts  a  question  to  me  as  to 
what  number  of  people  there  must  be  in  a  Territory  before  this  right  to  gov 
ern  themselves  accrues.  Without  determining  the  precise  number,  I  will  as 
sume  that  the  right  ought  to  accrue  to  the  people  at  the  moment  they  have 
enough  to  constitute  a  government ;  and,  sir,  the  bill  assumes  that  there  are 
people  enough  there  to  require  a  government,  and  enough  to  authorize  the 
people  to  govern  themselves.  If,  sir,  there  are  enough  to  require  a  govern 
ment,  and  to  authorize  you  to  allow  them  to  govern  themselves,  there  are 
enough  to  govern  themselves  upon  the  subject  of  negroes  as  well  as  concern 
ing  other  species  of  property  and  other  descriptions  of  institutions.  Your 
bill  concedes  that  government  is  necessary.  Your  bill  concedes  that  a  rep 
resentative  government  is  necessary — a  government  founded  upon  principles 
of  popular  sovereignty,  and  the  right  of  the  people  to  enact  their  own  laws ; 
and  for  this  reason  you  give  them  a  Legislature  constituted  of  two  branches, 
like  the  Legislatures  of  the  different  states  and  territories  of  the  Union  ;  you 
confer  upon  them  the  right  to  legislate  upon  all  rightful  subjects  of  legisla 
tion  except  negroes.  Why  except  negroes  ?  Why  except  African  slavery  ? 
If  the  inhabitants  are  competent  to  govern  themselves  upon  all  other  subjects, 
and  in  reference  to  all  other  descriptions  of  property — if  they  are  competent 
to  regulate  the  laws  in  reference  to  master  and  servant,  and  parent  and  child, 
and  commercial  laws  affecting  the  rights  and  property  of  citizens,  they  are 
competent  also  to  enact  laws  to  govern  themselves  in  regard  to  slavery  and 
negroes.  Why,  when  you  concede  the  fact  that  they  are  entitled  to  any  gov 
ernment  at  all,  you  concede  the  points  that  are  contended  for  here.  But  the 
senator  from  Mississippi  says  that  he  is  contending  for  a  principle  that  re 
quires  Congress  to  protect  property,  and  that  I  am  contending  against  it. 
Not  at  all,  sir ;  I  desire  to  give  them  such  a  government  as  will  enable  them 
to  protect  property  of  every  kind  and  description.  I  wish  to  make  no  excep 
tion.  He  desires  to  make  an  exception. 
Mr.  Davis.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  Douglas.  The  government  contended  for  authorizes  them  to  protect 
property  in  horses,  in  cattle,  in  merchandise,  and  property  of  every  kind  and 
description,  real  and  personal ;  but  the  senator  from  Mississippi  says  that  you 
must  exclude  African  slavery. 

Mr.  Davis.  No,  sir,  he  said  no  such  thing. 


THE   COMPROMISE    OF    1850.  143 

Mr.  Douglas.  He  excepted — 

Mr.  Davis,  of  Mississippi.  With  the  senator's  permission,  I  will  explain. 
He  is  attacking  the  bill,  but  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  bill  except  to  try 
and  better  it. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  begin  to  discover  my  error.  I  am  holding  the  senator  re 
sponsible  for  the  work  of  the  committee  of  thirteen. 

Mr.  Davis  (in  his  seat).  It  was  a  very  grave  error. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  was  making  war  upon  him  by  mistake.  I  must  pay  my 
respects  to  the  committee  of  thirteen.  They  make  the  distinction  that  the 
people  of  the  Territory  are  to  govern  themselves  in  respect  to  the  right  in  all 
kinds  of  property  but  African  slaves.  I  want  to  know  why  this  exception  ? 
Upon  what  principle  is  it  made  ?  What  is  the  necessity  for  it  ?  Is  it  not  as 
important  as  any  other  right  in  property  ?  Why,  then,  should  it  be  excepted 
and  reserved  ?  And,  sir,  if  you  reserve  it,  to  this  Congress  ?  No,  sir ;  you 
deny  it  to  the  people,  and  you  deny  it  to  the  government  here  ;  and  here  is 
to  be  one  species  of  property,  one  description  of  institution — 

Mr.  Downs.  Will  the  senator  allow  me  to  ask  him  a  question  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.   Certainly  ;  I  yield  the  floor. 

Mr.  Downs.  I  ask  the  senator  whether  he  did  not  vote  for  and  approve  of 
the  Clayton  Compromise  Bill  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.  That  would  not  prove  a  great  deal.  I  suppose  if  I  did  that 
it  would  not  prove  that  this  was  right  or  wrong ;  but  I  will  answer  the  sena 
tor's  question.  I  struggled  then  as  I  do  now  for  the  principle  that  I  am  con 
tending  for.  That  bill  was  hatched  up  in  my  absence,  from  a  necessity  which 
all  will  acknowledge.  I  got  back  here  just  time  enough  to  vote  on  the  ques 
tion,  and,  after  all  other  things  had  failed — after  the  principle  I  contended 
for  had  failed,  I  did  vote  for  that  bill  rather  than  to  have  no  government  at 
all.  I  preferred  that  bill  to  leaving  the  people,  as  they  have  been  left,  with 
out  a  government.  But,  sir,  while  that  was  the  case,  I  did  not  approve  then 
of  that  principle,  and  I  do  not  approve  of  it  now ;  and  I  put  the  question  to 
the  senator  from  Louisiana  (Mr.  Downs),  whether  he  can  not  give  me  a  bet 
ter  answer,  for  this  exception  as  to  the  rights  of  the  people,  than  that  I  had 
from  necessity,  when  forced  upon  me  by  others,  voted  for  a  bill  containing 
such  a  clause,  rather  than  to  leave  the  people  without  a  government,  and  have 
the  country  kept  in  a  state  of  strife  and  agitation. 

Mr.  Downs.  I  merely  wish  to  say,  in  reply  to  the  senator,  that  the  reasons 
why  I  think  this  exception  ought  to  be  made  were  contained  in  the  remarks 
which  I  made  the  other  day.  He  will  find  all  I  have  to  say  on  the  subject 
there. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Now,  Mr.  President,  I  have  a  word  to  say  to  the  honorable 
senator  from  Mississippi  (Mr.  Davis).  He  insists  that  I  am  not  in  favor  of 
protecting  property,  and  that  his  amendment  is  offered  for  the  purpose  of  pro 
tecting  property  under  the  Constitution.  Now,  sir,  I  ask  you  what  authority 
he  has  for  assuming  that  ?  Do  I  not  desire  to  protect  property  because  I  wish 
to  allow  these  people  to  pass  such  laws  as  they  deem  proper  respecting  their 
rights  in  property  without  any  exception  ?  lie  might  just  as  well  say  that  I 
am  opposed  to  protecting  property  in  merchandise,  in  steam-boats,  in  cattle, 
in  real  estate,  as  to  say  that  I  am  opposed  to  protecting  property  of  any  other 
description  ;  for  I  desire  to  put  them  all  on  an  equality,  and  allow  the  people 
to  make  their  own  laws  in  respect  to  the  whole  of  them.  But  the  difference 
is  this  :  he  desires  an  amendment  which  he  thinks  will  recognize  the  institu 
tion  of  slavery  in  the  territories  as  now  existing  in  this  country.  I  do  not  be 
lieve  it  exists  there  now  by  law.  I  believe  it  is  prohibited  there  by  law  at 
this  time,  and  the  effect,  if  not  the  object  of  his  amendment,  would  be  to  in 
troduce  slavery  by  law  into  a  country  from  which  I  think  a  large  majority  of 
this  Senate  are  of  opinion  it  is  now  excluded,  and  he  calls  upon  us  to  vote  to 


144  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

introduce  it  there.  The  senator  from  Kentucky,  who  brought  forward  this 
Compromise,  tells  us  that  he  can  never  give  a  vote  by  which  he  will  introduce 
slavery  where  it  does  not  exist.  Other  senators  have  declared  the  same  thing, 
to  an  extent  which  authorizes  us  to  assume  that  the  majority  of  this  Senate 
will  never  extend  slavery  by  law  into  territory  now  free.  What,  then,  must 
be  the  eifect  of  the  adoption  of  the  provision  offered  by  the  senator  from  Mis 
sissippi  ?  It  would  be  the  insertion  of  a  provision  that  must  infallibly  defeat 
the  bill,  deprive  the  people  of  the  Territories  of  government,  leave  them  in  a 
state  of  anarchy,  and  keep  up  excitement  and  agitation  in  this  country.  I 
do  not  say,  nor  would  I  intimate,  that  such  is  the  object  of  the  senator  from 
Mississippi.  I  know  that  he  has  another  and  a  different  object — an  object 
which  he  avows.  That  object  is  to  extend  the  institution  of  slavery  to  this 
Territory ;  or,  rather,  as  he  believes  it  to  be  already  carried  there  by  law,  to 
continue  its  legal  existence  in  the  Territory. 

After  discussing  the  question  of  the  power  of  Congress  to 
prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territories,  Mr.  Douglas  continued : 

But 'I  do  say  that,  if  left  to  myself  to  carry  out  my  own  opinions,  I  would 
leave  the  whole  subject  to  the  people  of  the  Territories  themselves,  and  allow 
them  to  introduce  or  to  exclude  slavery,  as  they  may  see  proper.  I  believe 
that  that  is  the  principle  upon  which  our  institutions  rest.  I  believe  it  is  one 
of  those  rights  to  be  conceded  to  the  Territories  the  moment  they  have  gov 
ernments  and  Legislatures  established  for  them ;  because,  by  establishing  a 
government  and  giving  them  power  to  form  a  Legislature,  you  admit  that 
they  are  competent  to  govern  themselves ;  otherwise  they  would  not  be  au 
thorized  to  establish  a  Legislature  and  confide  all  their  rights  to  it,  with  the 
exception  of  this  one  of  the  institution  of  slavery.  For  these  reasons,  and 
others  which  I  will  not  enlarge  upon,  I  am  opposed  to  any  provision  in  this 
bill  prohibiting  the  people  of  the  Territory  from  legislating  in  respect  to  Afri 
can  slavery.  I  would  desire  to  see  it  stricken  out;  and  I  repeat  that  I  can 
not  conceive  how  the  senator  from  Michigan  (Mr.  Cass),  and  those  who  think 
with  him,  and  acted  with  him  during  the  last  campaign,  can  go  for  a  provi 
sion  of  this  kind  without  abandoning  the  position  which  they  assumed ;  and 
upon  that  point  I  have  the  senator  from  Mississippi  with  me.  I  recollect 
that  early  in  the  session  he  made  a  speech  here,  in  which  he  declared  that 
he  put  that  construction  on  the  letter  of  the  senator  from  Michigan  (Mr.  Cass) 
during  the  campaign,  and  that  it  made  him  a  little  lukewarm  in  his  support 
of  that  gentleman.  I  do  not  believe,  sir,  that  the  Senate  can  agree  upon  any 
principle  by  which  a  bill  can  pass  giving  governments  to  the  Territories  in 
which  the  word  "slavery"  is  mentioned.  If  you  prohibit — if  you  establish — 
if  you  recognize — if  you  control — if  you  touch  the  question  of  slavery,  your 
bill  can  not,  in  my  opinion,  pass  this  body.  But  the  bill  that  you  can  pass 
is  one  that  is  open  upon  these  questions,  that  says  nothing  upon  the  subject, 
but  leaves  the  people  to  do  just  as  they  please,  and  to  shape  their  insti 
tutions  according  to  what  they  may  conceive  to  be  their  interests  both  for 
the  present  and  the  future. 

ME.  KING,   OF   ALABAMA    (AFTERWARD   VICE-PRESIDENT). 

Sir,  I  do  not  think  there  is  a  solitary  gentleman  on  the  other  side,  belong 
ing  to  a  particular  party,  that  would  be  in  favor  of  giving  to  these  Territorial 
Legislatures  this  full  power  to  pass  laws  either  for  the  prohibition  or  the  in 
troduction  of  slavery.  They  would  be  afraid  of  its  introduction ;  and  the 
probability  is  that  their  fears  would  not  be  entirely  groundless.  I,  sir,  am 


THE   COMPROMISE   OP    1850.  145 

opposed  to  giving  to  the  Territorial  Legislatures  any  power  either  to  prohibit 
or  to  introduce  it.  I  believe  that  the  power  does  not  exist  on  the  part  of 
Congress,  and,  in  that  respect,  I  differ  with  the  senator  from  Illinois  in  toto. 
Sir,  his  argument  is  a  Free-soil  speech ;  it  is  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  so  far  as 
the  argument  goes,  as  to  giving  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  the 
power  of  regulating  every  description  of  property  which  the  citizens  of  the 
country  possess  who  choose  to  emigrate  there.  The  senator  went  vastly  be 
yond  what  I  have  heard  before,  because  it  was  then  confined  to  slavery.  But 
he  would  prohibit  all  property,  because,  forsooth,  the  government  of  the  Uni 
ted  States  prevented  traders  from  going  into  the  Indian  country  and  selling 
certain  articles  to  these  unfortunate  beings.  Sir,  the  first  territorial  govern 
ments  which  we  established  were  simply  for  the  protection  of  persons  and 
property,  and  consisted  of  a  governor  and  council.  And  are  senators  pre 
pared  to  say  that  this  governor  and  his  council,  if  governments  should  be  or 
dained  for  these  Territories,  should  have  the  power  of  regulating  property 
entirely  ?  Sir,  I  never  did  agree  with  my  friend  from  Michigan  in  regard  to 
what  is  supposed  to  be  the  construction  of  the  Nicholson  Letter.  I  never  did 
believe  that  a  Territorial  Legislature  possessed  any  power  whatever  but  such 
as  is  delegated  to  it  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States ;  and  the  power 
which  it  did  possess  simply  related  to  the  protection  of  persons  and  property, 
and  the  punishment  of  crime.  Sir,  what  do  you  require  of  them?  That 
they  shall  pass  no  law  that  is  not  to  be  submitted  to  Congress  for  its  appro 
bation,  leaving  them  strictly  to  the  control  of  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  in  every  act  that  they  may  pass.  And  yet  gentlemen  get  up  at  this 
day,  and  advocate  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  the  monstrous  doctrine  that  these 
Territorial  Legislatures,  consisting  of  a  mere  handful  of  men,  should  make 
laws  to  affect  every  description  of  property.  I  would  greatly  prefer  that  my 
friend  would  leave  out  this  provision,  which  by  some  is  considered  unneces 
sary.  The  section,  it  appears  to  me,  effects  every  thing  that  ought  *to  be 
desired,  and  it  leaves  no  idea  that  any  thing  is  covered  up  in  it  which  ought 
not  to  be  there. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  must  say,  Mr.  President,  that  it  appears  to  me  that  my 
friend  from  Alabama  has  not  shown  his  usual  courtesy  in  the  remarks  he  has 
just  made.  He  has  been  pleased  to  say  that  my  speech  was  a  Free-soil  speech, 
and  a  Wilmot  Proviso  speech.  And  why  ?  because  I  made  an  argument  in 
favor  of  the  Territorial  Bill  in  the  Senate,  neither  adopting  nor  rejecting  any 
provision  in  relation  to  slavery  in  the  Territories.  In  other  words,  I  made 
an  argument  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  advocated  by  my  friend  from  Michigan 
(Mr.  Cass),  so  far  as  the  territorial  governments  were  concerned.  The  sen 
ator  from  Alabama  says  that  he  never  agreed  with  my  friend  from  Michigan 
on  this  point,  and  that  my  argument  is  Free-soilism  and  Wilmot  Provisoism. 
He  then  changes  his  position  with  his  eyes  open,  having  advocated  the  Wil 
mot  Proviso  at  the  last  presidential  election,  and  he  became  an  advocate  of  it 
with  his  eyes  open  on  that  subject. 

Mr.  King.  I  suppose  the  senator,  in  making  this  statement,  means  noth 
ing  personal. 

Mr.  Doughs.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  King.  I  said  nothing  about  the  argument  as  to  the  power  of  the  Terri 
torial  Legislature  to  pass  such  laws.  The  portion  to  which  I  referred  was 
that  portion  in  which  he  contended  that  Congress  had  all  power  over  the  Ter 
ritories—to  exclude  from,  or  admit  into,  or  control  property  in  those  Terri 
tories. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Now,  sir,  we  will  turn  to  that  point.  My  argument  was  in 
favor  of  passing  a  Territorial  Bill  without  any  provision  on  the  subject  of  sla 
very.  I  undertake  to  say  that  three  months  ago  the  senator  from  Alabama 
was  in  favor  of — 

G 


146  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS. 

The  Vice-President.  It  is  not  in  order  to  make  any  personal  allusions. 

Mr.  Douglas.  It  can  not  be  out  of  order  to  tell  the  truth  in  a  respectful 
manner. 

Mr.  King.  I  am  still  in  favor  of  establishing  territorial  governments  with 
out  saying  any  thing  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  so  far  as  the  introduction  of  it 
into  or  the  exclusion  of  it  from  the  Territories  is  concerned.  That  is  what  I 
was  in  favor  of  three  months  ago,  and  is  what  I  am  in  favor  of  still. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  stated  that  that  has  been  a  doctrine  unanimously  enter 
tained,  so  far  as  I  have  understood  it — that  territorial  bills  were  to  be  passed 
silent  upon  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  that  no  provision  was  to  be  made  upon 
the  subject.  I  understand  that  that  has  been  the  unanimous  doctrine ;  that 
is  what  I  now  advocate ;  that  is  what  I  made  an  argument  in  favor  of.  I 
did  not  propose  to  say  in  the  bill  that  the  Territorial  Legislature  should  have 
the  power  to  legislate  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  or  that  Congress  should  have 
power  to  prohibit  or  establish  it  in  the  Territories.  I  proposed  to  strike  out 
that  prohibition  of  the  Territorial  Legislature  on  the  subject,  and,  that  being 
done,  it  would  read  that  territorial  legislation  should  extend  to  all  rightful 
subject  of  legislation  within  their  boundaries.  I  proposed  to  make  it  an 
open  question,  so  that  the  people  themselves  could  do  with  it  as  they  pleased. 
Now,  sir,  let  me  compare  notes  with  the  senator,  and  see  who  is  in  favor  of 
the  Wilmot  Proviso  and  Free-soil  doctrine  on  this  point.  He  desires  a  pro 
hibition  on  the  part  of  Congress  that  the  Territorial  Legislatures  shall  not 
legislate  in  respect  to  slavery.  Why,  sir,  the  laws  of  Mexico  prohibited 
slavery  in  those  territories  when  we  acquired  them  from  that  country,  and, 
according  to  the  law  of  nations,  the  laws  of  Mexico  are  still  in  force.  And 
what  is  it  that  the  senator  proposes  ?  why,  it  is  to  continue  those  laws  in  force, 
and  to  prevent  the  people  themselves  from  repealing  them.  And  that  is  the 
very  doctrine  of  the  senator  from  Wisconsin,  which  he  wants  to  continue  and 
retain  in  the  bill.  That  was  the  reason  it  was  voted  into  the  bill  by  the 
committee  of  thirteen,  the  senator  from  Vermont  giving  the  casting  vote  to 
put  it  in,  because  it  was  a  perpetuation  of  the  prohibition  of  slavery  forever. 
Sir,  I  wish  to  strike  it  out,  because  I  do  not  wish  to  perpetuate  any  institu 
tion  against  the  will  of  the  people.  I  wish  to  leave  them  free  to  regulate 
their  own  institutions  in  their  own  way,  without  compelling  them  to  establish 
an  institution  there,  on  the  one  hand,  if  they  do  not  wish,  nor  preventing 
them,  on  the  other,  from  establishing  it  if  they  do  wish  it.  Sir,  I  only  made 
those  remarks  which  I  thought  were  courteous.  I  had  made  a  speech  in  fa 
vor  of  the  doctrines  I  have  always  held,  and  I  did  not  expect  to  see  the  sen 
ator  from  Alabama  show  that  irritability  of  temper,  and  to  hear  him  use  ep-? 
ithets  instead  of  attempting  to  reply  to  an  argument  which  he  knew  to  be 
frankly  and  candidly  made.  I  made  no  uncourteous  remark.  Now,  sir,  I 
admit  that  I  would  rather  take  the  doctrine  as  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  bill  of 
the  senator  from  Kentucky,  than  one  which  would  stultify  the  whole  Dem 
ocratic  party.  It  is  now  clear  that  the  object  is  to  stultify  the  whole  Dem 
ocratic  party  of  1848.  It  is  now  intended  to  rebuke  the  doctrine  we  advo 
cated  at  that  time.  The  senator  from  Mississippi  said  he  was  opposed  to  it, 
the  senator  from  Alabama  says  he  too  is  opposed  to  it ;  the  doctrines  of  the 
senator  from  Michigan  are  to  be  abandoned,  new  doctrines  are  to  be  raised, 
and  the  supporters  of  the  doctrines  enunciated  in  1848  are  to  be  smoothed 
down  and  required  to  vote  for  a  measure  which  is  intended  to  stultify  and 
disgrace  the  whole  Democratic  party.  That,  sir,  is  the  question  which  we 
are  to  meet,  and,  if  we  must  meet  it,  let  us  meet  it  openly  and  like  men. 
The  senator  from  Kentucky  was  manly  enough  to  say  that  he  was  opposed 
to  this  measure ;  he  was  manly  enough  to  rise  above  all  political  rivalries, 
and  to  say  that  it  was  wrong  to  put  the  question  on  such  a  basis.  We  can 
stand  where  we  stood  in  1848,  and  where  we  have  ever  stood  upon  this  ques- 


THE   COMPEOMISE    OF    1850.  14*7 

tion.  But,  sir,  when  we  are  required  to  retrace  our  steps  and  renounce 
what  we  have  alleged  to  be  our  principles,  that  becomes  quite  a  different 
question. 

.      MK.  CASS,  OF   MICHIGAN. 

******** 
Now,  with  respect  to  the  amendments.  I  shall  vote  against  them  both ; 
and  then  I  shall  vote  in  favor  of  striking  out  the  restriction  in  the  bill  upon 
the  power  of  the  territorial  governments.  I  shall  do  so  upon  this  ground. 
I  was  opposed,  as  the  honorable  senator  from  Kentucky  has  declared  he  was, 
to  the  insertion  of  this  prohibition  by  the  committee.  I  consider  it  inexpe 
dient  and  unconstitutional.  I  have  already  stated  my  belief  that  the  right 
ful  power  of  internal  legislation  in  the  Territories  belongs  to  the  people.  You 
have  the  right  to  govern,  but  not  to  legislate  for  them — the  doctrine  for  which 
our  fathers  contended,  and  which  brought  about  our  separation  from  England. 
But,  sir,  how  is  it  possible  to  vote  for  this  interdict  without  conceding  the 
constitutional  right  of  Congress  to  pass  the  Wilmot  Proviso  ?  Congress  can 
only  insert  this  clause  upon  the  assumption  that  they  have  full  power  over 
the'Territories — power  to  admit,  power  to  exclude,  as  well  as  power  to  say  that 
the  Territorial  Legislature  may  do  one  or  the  other,  for  neither  can  be  exer 
cised  but  by  virtue  of  full  jurisdiction. 

The  action  of  the  Senate  upon  the  pending  proposition  has 
already  been  stated — the  restriction  upon  the  powers  of  the 
Territorial  Legislature  was  voted  in. 


ME.  PHELPS,   OF   VERMONT. 

I  had  determined,  Mr.  President,  not  to  open  my  mouth  in  the  course  of 
this  debate,  and  I  should  not  do  so  now  were  it  not  for  the  allusion  just 
made  to  me  by  the  senator  from  Mississippi.  It  is  very  true  that  the  provi 
sion  in  the  Clayton  Bill,  as  it  has  been  termed — the  same  proposed  now  to  be 
stricken  out  of  this  bill — originated  in  the  committee  with  me.  But,  after 
what  has  fallen  from  the  senator  from  Mississippi,  I  deem  it  due  to  myself  to 
explain  the  reasons  why  I  shall  now  vote  against  the  proposition  to  keep  that 
in  the  bill  which,  on  that  occasion,  I  advocated.  *  *  * 

But  the  bill  now  before  us  presents  the  subject  in  a  very  different  light. 
We  propose  now  to  create  a  Legislature  to  be  elected  by  the  people  of  the 
Territory,  representing  the  wishes  and  feelings  of  that  people,  and  responsi 
ble  to  that  people  for  their  legislative  course.  Under  these  circumstances, 
Mr.  President,  the  subject  assumes,  in  my  judgment,  a  very  different  aspect. 
It  is  no  longer  a  question  whether  the  appointees  of  the  President  are  to  be 
left  to  regulate  this  important  subject,  but  it  becomes  a  question  whether  the 
Legislature  of  the  Territory,  elected  by  the  people  of  that  Territory,  shall  have 
the  control  over  it.  This  distinction  is,  in  my  judgment,  material ;  and, 
therefore,  if  the  proposition  were  now  to  erect  such  a  government  as  was 
contemplated  by  that  bill  in  1848, 1  would  retain  the  position  I  then  occu 
pied.  But  I  feel  bound  now  to  say  that  I  can  not  take  from  a  Legislature, 
elected  by  the  people  of  these  Territories,  the  control  over  their  domestic  re 
lations.  It  is  wrong  in  principle.  It  so  happens  that  those  of  us  at  the 
North  who  have  heretofore  insisted  upon  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  Con 
gress  over  this  subject  to  exclude  slavery  from  these  Territories  are  now  in  a 
position  to  permit  the  people  of  the  Territories  to  have  their  own  way,  and 
regulate  the  subject  as  may  suit  themselves.  It  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  ex 
plain  how  this  change  of  position  has  been  produced.  It  is  enough  for  me 
to  say  now  that  I  regard  this  subject  of  the  question  of  the  prohibition  of 


148  LIFE    OP   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

slavery  as  a  fit  subject  of  local  legislation,  and  one  which  should  be  given 
exclusively  to  the  local  Legislatures. 

When  it  is  proposed  to-day  to  deny  to  the  people  in  these  Territories,  or 
their  immediate  representatives,  elected  by  themselves,  the  control  over  the 
subject,  I  must  say  I  can  not  sustain  the  proposition. 

*  *  *  I  do  not  know  but  that  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  ask  pardon  for 
having  addressed  the  Senate  at  this  time.  I  did  not  intend  to  express  my 
opinion  at  all ;  but,  after  the  allusion  made  to  me  by  the  senator  from  Mis 
sissippi,  it  became  necessary ;  because,  on  the  occasion  referred  to  by  him,  I 
submitted  this  very  proposition  to  prevent  the  Territorial  Legislature  from 
acting  on  this  subject,  and  on  the  present  oecasion  I  am  against  the  proposi 
tion.  The  reason  why  I  have  changed  my  position  is  simply  the  fact  that 
the  restriction  in  1848  was  upon  a  government  created  by  the  executive  of 
the  United  States,  and  not  by  the  people  of  the  Territory.  The  restriction 
now  proposed  is  upon  the  immediate  representatives  of  that  people. 

ME.  PRATT,   OF    MARYLAND. 

Mr.  President :  As  this  amendment  is  up,  I  hope  I  may  be  allowed  to  say 
a  few  words,  so  that  my  constituents  can  understand  my  position. 

The  great  doctrine  of  the  South,  as  I  understand  it,  and  the  only  true 
ground  upon  which  the  South  can  stand,  is  the  doctrine  of  non-intervention. 
Now  what  I  understand  by  non-intervention  is  the  denial  to  the  executive 
and  legislative  authority  of  the  federal  government  of  all  power  over  the  sub 
ject  of  slavery  any  where  and  every  where.  That  is  the  non-intervention 
upon  which  I  have  been  taught  to  rest  the  rights  of  the  South ;  that  is  the 
non-intervention  upon  which  I  am  now  willing  to  rest  them — that  neither 
the  executive  nor  legislative  branches  of  the  federal  government  have  the 
power,  in  any  way  whatever,  to  interfere  with  the  subject  of  domestic  slavery 
any  where.  And  I  am  therefore  perfectly  willing  that  the  amendment  which 
was  originally  adopted  should  be  stricken  out,  as  proposed  by  my  friend  from 
New  Hampshire  (Mr.  Norris).  But  there  is  another  reason  which,  it  seems 
to  me,  must  render  this  provision,  in  the  eyes  of  every  one,  inoperative,  if  it 
continue  in  the  bill.  You  have  this  morning  adopted  an  amendment  by 
which  the  Territorial  government  established  by  the  bill  is  not  to  operate,  in 
prsesenti,  within  the  larger  portion  of  the  territory  claimed  as  New  Mexico. 
Therefore,  in  consequence  of  that  restriction,  there  could  be  no  legislation  in 
reference  to  the  subject  of  slavery  within  that  Territory  at  the  present  time. 

With  regard  to  the  other  Territory,  Utah,  slaves  are  already  held  there ; 
and  if  you  give  to  the  people  of  that  Territory  power  to  regulate  it — which 
thev  would  have  if  this  clause  is  stricken  out — they  would  legislate  in  favor 
of  that  Southern  institution  in  which  we  are  interested.  I  therefore,  for  one, 
as  a  Southern  man,  standing  up  for  the  rights  of  the  South  as  much  as  any 
man  here,  am  willing  that  this  clause  should  be  stricken  out,  more  particu 
larly  when  it  will  gain  some  votes  for  the  bill. 

MR.  TURNEY,   OF   TENNESSEE. 
********* 

Sir,  if  the  pending  motion  prevails,  the  people  of  New  Mexico  will  have 
the  power  to  exclude  the  Southern  people  from  the  territory  to  be  acquired 
from  Texas,  and  to  spread  over  it  the  Wilmot  Proviso.  I  would  as  soon  vote 
for  that  proviso  here.  I  believe  it  would  be  more  magnanimous  to  vote  for 
it  here  than  to  fight  behind  the  bush  in  this  way. 

Now  what  was  fair  two  years  ago,  when  we  had  a  Southern  President — 
what  was  then  sound  policy,  just  and  equitable  to  all  sections — seems  now, 
according  to  some  gentlemen,  to  be  unfair,  unjust,  unsound.  There  is  a 
change  of  circumstances.  A  different  set  of  officers  will  be  sent  there.  A 


THE   COMPKOMISE   OF    1850.  149 

set  of  officers,  entertaining  very  different  opinions  to  what  would  have  been 
sent  two  years  ago,  are  now  to  be  sent  by  the  present  executive,  who  will 
most  heartily  desire  to  exclude  Southern  men.  If  this  bill  is  to  pass  they 
will  be  excluded,  especially  if  this  motion  shall  prevail.  They  will  be  ex 
cluded  in  less  than  six  months  after  the  law  shall  become  final  and  go  into 
operation. 

The  first  Territorial  Legislature,  considering  the  public  sentiment  there, 
will  exclude  the  South  forever.  For  these  reasons,  I  can  not  vote  for  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  New  Hampshire. 

ME.  BEEEIEN,   OF   GEORGIA. 

I  wish  the  Senate  to  understand  that  the  direct  effect  of  sanctioning  this 
amendment  will  be  to  invest  the  Territorial  Legislature  of  New  Mexico  with 
the  power  to  allow  or  prohibit  slavery — to  allow  if  they  exist,  or  to  re-enact 
if  they  do  not,  the  Mexican  laws. 

ME.  CLAY,  OF  KENTUCKY. 

I  heard  with  great  pleasure  the  senator  from  Vermont  (Mr.  Phelps).  I 
regret  that  he  has  not  favored  the  Senate  with  saying  more  than  he  has  done 
upon  this  subject.  One  of  the  most  interesting  speeches  that  I  have  read  was 
pronounced  by  that  senator  two  years  ago,  and  which  really  gave  me  more 
information  upon  this  subject  than  I  have  derived  from  any  thing  which  I 
have  heard  during  this  session.  But,  sir,  I  have  not  risen  to  detain  the  Sen 
ate.  I  have  risen  to  say  a  few  words  only  on  the  proposition  before  the  Sen 
ate  ;  and  I  do  think  that,  if  my  Southern  friends,  and  my  Northern  friends 
too,  will  only  listen,  if  I  am  not  entirely  incorrect  in  the  views  I  propose  to 
present,  they  will  concur  in  the  motion  made  by  the  senator  from  New  Hamp 
shire  to  strike  out  this  clause.  The  clause  is  an  interdiction  imposed  by  Con 
gress  upon  the  local  Legislature  either  to  introduce  or  to  exclude  slavery. 
Now,  sir,  it  appears  to  me  to  be  perfectly  clear  that  Congress  has  no  such 
power  according  to  the  Southern  doctrine.  That  doctrine  is  one  of  clear  and 
clean  non-intervention.  The  amendment  in  the  bill,  on  the  contrary,  as 
sumes  the  power  to  exist  in  Congress,  which  is  denied  ;  for,  if  Congress  pos 
sesses  the  power  to  impose  this  interdiction,  Congress  has  the  power  to  im 
pose  theWilmot  Proviso.  The  only  difference  is,  that  the  action  of  Congress 
in  the  one  case  is  direct,  and  that  the  action  of  Congress  in  the  other  case  is 
indirect.  It  appears  to  me,  therefore,  that  upon  the  great  principle  upon 
which  Southern  gentlemen  have  rested  the  support  of  their  rights,  they  ought 
to  oppose  the  exercise  of  this  power  by  Congress  to  interdict  the  local  Legis 
lature.  Sir,  it  is  a  little  remarkable  that,  by  the  one  side  of  the  Union,  whose 
interest  it  should  be  to  preserve  the  clause,  the  amendment  is  opposed ;  and 
that  the  other  side  of  the  Union,  whose  principles,  according  to  my  humble 
conception,  should  lead  them  to  oppose  the  clause  which  is  proposed  to  be 
stricken  out,  are  in  favor  of  it.  In  point  of  interest,  the  North  should  be  for 
retaining  the  clause,  because  if,  as  they  suppose,  and  as  I  believe,  there  is  at 
this  moment  an  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  Territories,  this  clause  serves  to 
continue  that  abolition  of  slavery ;  therefore  it  is  to  their  interest  to  retain 
this  clause,  because  it  would  give  an  additional  security  to  the  exclusion  of 
slavery,  which  they  desire.  I  know  that  my  Northern  friends  who  are  anx 
ious  to  exclude  this  clause  by  the  adoption  of  this  amendment,  go  upon  a 
higher  principle  than  mere  interest.  They  go  upon  the  very  principle  which 
the  South  has  contended  for.  They  say — for  upon  this  subject  I  have  con 
versed  with  them  freely — that  they  are  aware  of  the  advantage  to  their  inter 
est  which  might  result  from  the  retention  of  the  clause,  but  that  it  is  in  con 
travention  of  the  principle  for  which  they  have  contended  on  behalf  of  South 
ern  interests,  and  that  is  the  principle  of  non-intervention  on  the  subject  of 


150  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

slavery.  They  will  sacrifice  their  interests  for  the  preservation  of  the  great 
principle  upon  which  they  are  willing  to  stand  with  their  Southern  friends — 
the  principle  of  non-intervention ;  and  which,  if  the  amendment  prevails,  is 
the  principle  which  pervades  the  entire  bill,  running  through  it  from  first  to 
last.  I  know,  sir,  that  another  principle  has  been  contended  for  by  Southern 
gentlemen  of  great  eminence,  and  that  principle  is,  that  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  confers  upon  the  slaveholder  the  right  to  carry  his  slaves 
into  these  Territories.  If  so,  where  is  the  necessity  of  this  interdiction  ?  The 
Constitution  is  paramount  and  supreme ;  and  if  the  Legislature  of  the  Terri 
tory  were  to  pass  any  law  in  violation  of  the  Constitution,  that  law  unques 
tionably  would  be  null  and  void  from  the  moment  of  its  passage ;  and,  as 
suggested  by  the  senator  from  Maryland,  there  is  a  suspension  of  the  opera 
tions  of  this  bill  in  reference  to  the  only  Territory  in  contest — New  Mexico — 
this  side  of  the  Rio  Grande,  until  this  effort  at  compromise  shall  be  success 
ful,  or  thwarted  and  defeated.  It  appears  to  me,  therefore,  that  upon  the 
very  principle  for  which  Southern  gentlemen  have  stood  up,  they  should 
strike  out  this  clause  from  the  bill,  and  leave  it  a  clear  and  indisputable  bill 
of  non-intervention,  from  the  enacting  clause  to  the  end. 

ME.  CASS,  OF  MICHIGAN. 

But,  quitting  the  subject  of  legislative  inconsistency,  and  adverting  to  the 
immediate  proposition,  let  me  ask  what  you  are  doing.  What  ?  You  are 
passing  a  law  for  the  organization  of  a  government  for  the  people  of  New 
Mexico,  not  for  the  regulation  of  their  own  domestic  concerns — those  rela 
tions  of  life  which  belong  essentially  to  every  free  community.  You  do  not 
undertake  to  tax  them.  It  would  be  a  monstrous  assumption,  at  which  ev 
ery  American  would  revolt.  You  do  not  undertake  to  regulate  the  relations 
of  husband  and  wife,  or  parent  and  child,  or  guardian  and  ward,  nor  to  pro 
nounce  upon  the  other  internal  questions  which  belong  to  them.  We  should 
all  revolt  also  at  such  an  attempt.  Well,  sir,  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  the 
most  acute  political  casuistry  to  point  to  any  difference  in  principle  between 
the  exercise  of  these  powers  and  the  attempt  to  take  from  the  people  the 
right  to  regulate  at  their  pleasure  the  relation  of  master  and  servant,  includ 
ing  the  condition  of  slavery.  The  senator  from  Georgia  (Mr.  Berrien)  has 
advanced  views  which  certainly  struck  me  with  surprise,  in  this  country  and 
in  this  age  of  the  world.  He  said  that  the  Territorial  Legislature  were  the 
agents  of  this  government,  and  that  we  had  a  right  to  do  any  thing  here 
which  they  could  do  there.  Mr.  President,  such  a  proposition  as  that  strikes 
at  the  very  root  of  human  liberty.  It  is  far  better  suited  to  the  meridian  of 
Constantinople  than  to  that  of  Washington.  It  assumes  for  us  full  power  to 
do  as  we  please  with  the  people  of  a  remote  community,  without  representa 
tion,  with  separate  interests,  and  of  whose  concerns  we  are  wholly  ignorant. 
Why,  this  is  the  very  pretension  which  led  to  our  Revolution — the  very  pre 
tension  which  Lord  North  advanced,  and  which  our  fathers  resisted.  The 
claim  was,  and  it  was  embodied  in  a  memorable  act  of  Parliament,  that  "his 
majesty  in  Parliament  had  the  right  to  bind  the  colonies  in  all  cases  whatso 
ever;"  and  here,  in  the  American  Senate,  the  whole  doctrine  of  our  revolu 
tionary  struggle  is  cast  aside,  and  the  very  power  assumed  for  a  republican 
Legislature  which  was  denied  to  a  monarchical  one — the  power  to  bind  the 
Territories  in  all  cases  whatsoever.  I  will  not  argue  such  a  doctrine  as  that. 
I  appeal  to  our  whole  history  for  its  refutation.  The  Territorial  Legislatures 
our  agents !  and  who  made  them  so  ?  What  law  of  God  or  man  has  so  dealt 
with  human  rights  as  to  authorize  such  a  pretense  ?  What  said  our  fathers 
upon  this  general  subject  ?  Why,  they  acknowledged  the  right  of  the  Brit 
ish  government  to  institute  governments  for  the  colonies,  to  establish  the 
general  outlines,  but  not  to  regulate  their  internal  domestic  concerns.  Such 


THE   COMPROMISE   OF    1850.  151 

a  claim,  where  there  is  no  representation,  change  the  terms  as  we  may,  is  the 
very  essence  of  tyranny.  It  was  for  this  right  of  self-government  that  the 
patriots  of  the  Revolution  entered  into  a  fearful  contest  with  the  mightiest 
nation  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  out  of  which,  by  the  blessing  of  God  and 
by  their  undaunted  firmness,  they  came  triumphantly,  securing  their  own  lib 
erties,  and  ours  too,  so  long  as  we  have  wisdom  and  patriotism  to  maintain 
them.  And  I  must  confess  that  nothing  has  astonished  me  more,  in  all  the 
discussions  that  have  grown  out  of  this  controversy,  than  the  coolness  with 
which  gentlemen  rise  here  and  maintain  the  right  of  Congress  to  legislate 
for  these  distant  Territories  in  all  cases  whatsoever,  annihilating  human  free 
dom,  and  establishing  arbitrary  power  by  the  same  pretension.  If  this  is  not 
tyranny,  tell  me  what  it  is.  Is  your  claim  founded  on  the  Constitution? 
Put  your  finger  on  the  place  and  show  it.  There  is  not  the  first  word  which, 
expressly  or  by  implication,  gives  it  to  you.  Even  the  right  to  organize  gov 
ernments  is  not  there.  But  if  you  assume  that  as  a  matter  of  necessity,  what 
necessity  is  there  for  you,  not  to  govern  these  distant  people,  but  to  legislate 
for  them,  and  to  take  from  them  the  very  first  attribute  of  freedom  ?  Do 
you  found  this  claim  upon  your  superior  wisdom — upon  your  capacity  to  judge 
what  is  suited  to  the  people  better  than  they  can  judge  for  themselves  ?  I 
ask  you  where  ever  there  was  an  arbitrary  government  which  had  not  the 
same  self-sufficient  opinion  of  its  own  wisdom,  and  of  the  ignorance  of  the 
people  ?  Lord  North  thought  so  and  said  so.  The  sultan  thinks  so ;  and  at 
Vienna  and  Petersburgh  to  doubt  such  a  clear  proposition  is  to  insure  a  res 
idence  in  Siberia,  or  to  exhaust  life  in  Austrian  dungeons. 

Pending  the  decision  of  the  Senate  on  these  bills,  the  sen 
ators  elect  from  the  State  of  California  were  in  daily  attend 
ance  in  the  lobby  of  the  Senate.  They  heard  all  these  debates 
— debates  upon  a  bill  so  deeply  important  to  their  state,  and 
upon  the  passage  of  which,  it  was  believed,  depended  their  ad 
mission  as  senators  of  the  United  States.  The  senator  from 
Illinois  had  the  California  Bill  under  his  especial  charge.  He 
was  its  friend  and  advocate — its  champion  and  defender.  He 
proclaimed  his  views  in  a  tone  of  voice  that  would  enable  a 
deaf  man  to  hear  them,  and  in  language  so  plain  that  a  simple 
ton  could  understand  him.  His  speeches  were  published  daily, 
and  were  read  by  all.  The  senators  from  California  were  not 
deaf,  nor  were  they  simpletons ;  they  read  the  papers,  and  read 
and  understood  the  sentiments  of  every  man  in  the  Senate 
upon  the  Territorial  question.  Yet,  nine  years  later,  one  of 
those  senators,  who  had  heard  Douglas  make  the  speeches  we 
have  quoted  above,  told  the  people  of  California  that  he  had 
voted  to  remove  Judge  Douglas  from  the  committee  where  he 
had  matured  the  bill  for  the  admission  of  California,  because,  in 
a  speech  delivered  in  1858,  that  man  Douglas  had  declared  that 
he  was  in  favor  of  allowing  the  people  of  a  Territory,  through 
their  own  Legislature,  to  exclude  slavery  if  they  did  not  desire 
it  in  the  Territory !  Wonderful  awakening  to  the  cause  of 


152  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

justice !  In  1859,  WILLIAM  M.  Gwra,  senator  from  the  State 
of  California,  declared  Stephen  A.  Douglas  to  be  a  political 
outcast,  who  had  been  displaced  from  the  chairmanship  of  a 
committee  because  he  had  expressed  an  opinion  that  the  people 
of  a  Territory  might  exclude  slavery  by  the  action  of  their  Ter 
ritorial  Legislature;  and  in  1850  the  same  WILLIAM  M.  GWIN 
selected  from  the  sixty  members  of  the  United  States  Senate 
the  same  Stephen  A.  Douglas  as  the  most  appropriate  person 
to  present  his  credentials  to  the  United  States  Senate,  not 
withstanding  he  had,  in  the  hearing  of  said  Gwin,  a  few  weeks 
previously,  in  the  speeches  we  have  quoted,  expressed  the 
same  opinions  most  unequivocally,  broadly,  and  distinctly. 
Wonderful  change  of  opinion!  Remarkable  falling  of  the 
scales ! 

THE   DESTRUCTION   OF 

On  the  31st  of  July,  after  the  adoption  of  Mr.  Norris's  mo 
tion,  Mr.  Pearce,  of  Maryland,  desiring  to  get  rid  of  the  pro 
viso  of  Mr.  Dawsou,  attached  to  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Brad 
bury,  moved  to  strike  out  ah1  those  sections  of  the  bill  relating 
to  the  establishment  of  a  territorial  government  for  New  Mex 
ico,  intending,  when  that  motion  was  agreed  to,  to  move  to 
reinsert  all  of  them  again  except  the  Dawson  amendment,  in 
lieu  of  which  he  said  he  would  offer  a  proviso  to  the  effect 
that  the  territorial  government  provided  for  New  Mexico  by 
the  bill  should  not  go  into  effect  until  March,  1851.  Under 
this  proposition,  if  the  Texas  Boundary  was  not  settled  by 
March,  '51,  the  government  of  New  Mexico  would  go  into 
operation  on  both  sides  of  the  Rio  Grande,  extending  over, 
of  course,  the  territory  claimed  by  Texas.  The  motion  to 
strike  out  was  agreed  to — yeas  33,  nays  22.  Mr.  Pearce  then 
moved  to  insert  as  above  stated.  A  motion  to  postpone  the 
bill  indefinitely  was  made  and  lost — yeas  27,  nays  32.  A 
long  debate  ensued,  and  another  motion  to  postpone  indefi 
nitely  resulted — yeas  29,  nays  30;  the  senators  from  Texas 
voting  in  the  affirmative. 

Mr.  Yulee,  of  Florida,  moved  to  strike  out  of  Mr.  Pearce's 
amendment  all  that  related  to  Texas,  being  the  Bradbury 
proposition,  and  this  motion  was  agreed  to — yeas  29,  nays  28. 
A  motion  to  indefinitely  postpone  was  again  made,  and  lost  by 
a  majority  of  one. 


THE   COMPROMISE    OF    1850.  153 

The  question  was,  after  much  debate  and  many  rejected  mo 
tions  to  adjourn,  etc.,  taken  on  Mr.  Pearce's  motion  to  restore 
the  sections  of  the  bill  relating  to  New  Mexico,  and  was  de 
cided  in  the  negative — yeas  25,  nays  29.  So  Texas  and  New 
Mexico  were  both  put  out  of  the  omnibus. 

Mr.  Walker  moved  to  strike  out  all  relating  to  Utah,  leav 
ing  California  alone  in  the  bill,  but  that  motion  failed. 

Mr.  Atchison  then  moved  to  strike  out  all  of  the  bill  relating 
to  California,  or,  as  he  expressed  it,  "  to  turn  her  out  of  the 
omnibus."  This  was  rejected  by  a  tie  vote,  29  to  29. 

Motions  to  adjourn,  to  postpone  indefinitely,  etc.,  etc.,  were 
made  in  rapid  succession,  but  all  failed ;  the  Senate  was  de 
termined  to  finish  the  bill  that  night. 

At  last  the  Senate  reconsidered  the  vote  rejecting  Mr. 
Atchison's  motion,  and  then,  by  a  vote  of  34  to  25,  struck  out 
all  that  related  to  California.  And  Utah  was  the  only  pas 
senger  left  in  the  omnibus ! 

An  incident  took  place  at  this  time  which  has  derived  a  pe 
culiar  significance  from  events  that  have  occurred  in  the  legis 
lative  history  of  Congress  since  that  time.  It  being  necessary 
to  alter  the  proposed  boundaries  of  Utah,  in  order  to  include 
some  settlement  whose  exact  locality  had  to  some  extent  been 
more  definitely  ascertained  since  the  original  framing  of  the 
bill,  Mr.  Douglas  moved  to  fix  the  southern  boundary  upon 
the  line  of  37°  north  latitude. 

Mr.  Davis,  of  Mississippi,  moved  to  insert  36°  30'  in  lieu 
of  37°. 

Mr.  Douglas  accepted  the  amendment  as  a  modification  of 
his  own. 

Mr.  Hale,  of  New  Hampshire,  said :  "  I  wish  to  say  a  word 
as  a  reason  why  I  shall  vote  against  the  amendment.  I  shall 
vote  against  36°  30'  because  I  think  there  is  an  implication  in 
it.  (Laughter.)  I  will  vote  for  37°,  or  36°  either,  just  as  it  is 
convenient,  but  it  is  idle  to  shut  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  here 
is  an  attempt  in  this  bill — I  will  not  say  it  is  the  intention  of 
the  mover — to  pledge  this  /Senate  and  Congress  to  the  imag 
inary  line  of  36°  30',  because  there  are  some  historical  recol 
lections  connected  with  it  in  regard  to  this  controversy  about 
slavery.  I  will  content  myself  with  saying  that  I  never  will, 
by  vote  or  speech,  admit  or  submit  to  any  thing  that  may  bind 
the  action  of  our  legislation  here,  to  make  the  parallel  of  36° 

G2 


154  LIFE    OP   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

30'  the  boundary-line  between  slave  and  free  territory.  And 
when  I  say  that,  I  explain  the  reason  why  I  go  against  the 
amendment." 

The  amendment  of  Mr.  Douglas  was  rejected,  yeas  26,  nays 
27,  and  among  those  voting  in  the  negative — voting  never  to 
admit  or  submit  to  any  thing  that  might  bind  the  action  of 
Congress  to  make  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  of  36°  30'  the 
boundary  between  slave  and  free  territory — were  Chase  of 
Ohio,  Dayton  of  New  Jersey,  Hale  of  New  Hampshire,  Ham- 
lin  of  Maine,  and  Seward  of  New  York,  who,  five  years  there 
after,  denounced  the  repeal  or  removal  of  that  "imaginary 
line"  when  proposed  by  the  same  senator  who  now  moved  its 
recognition!  In  1850  these  abolitionists  refused  to  vote  to 
make  it  the  southern  boundary  of  a  territory,  lest  doing  so 
might,  by  implication,  be  an  admission  of  the  "  historical  rec 
ollections"  of  that  line.  In  1854,  no  men  were  more  loud  or 
more  vehement  than  these  same  men  in  glorifying  the  "his 
torical  recollections"  of  the  "  sacred  compact"  and  "  time-hon 
ored  compromise !" 

The  amendment  having  been  rejected,  the  following  remarks 
were  made : 

Mr.  Douglas.  "It  is  necessary  to  make  some  change  of 
boundary  in  order  to  include  the  Mormon  settlements.  Thir 
ty-seven  degrees  will  include  them  as  well  as  36°  30'.  I  move 
to  insert  '37°.'" 

Mr.  Hale.  "  Agreed.    I  have  no  objection." 

Mr.  Mason.  "  I  move  to  amend  the  amendment  of  the  sena 
tor  from  Illinois  by  inserting  « 36°'  instead  of '  37°.' " 

Mr.  Hale.  "  I  have  no  objection." 

Mr.  Mason's  amendment  was  rejected,  and  "37°,"  as  pro 
posed  by  Mr.  Douglas,  was  adopted. 

The  struggle  to  defeat  the  bill  was  protracted  some  time 
longer,  but  at  last  the  question  was  put  on  ordering  it  to  a 
third  reading,  and  the  yeas  and  nays  stood  as  follows : 

Yeas — Atchison  of  Missouri,  Badger  of  North  Carolina,  Benton  of  Mis 
souri,  Berrien  of  Georgia,  Bradbury  of  Maine,  Bright  of  Indiana,  Butler  of 
South  Carolina,  Cass  of  Michigan,  Davis  of  Mississippi,  Dawson  of  Georgia, 
Dickinson  of  New  York,  Dodge  of  Iowa,  Douglas  of  Illinois,  Downs  of  Lou 
isiana,  Felch  of  Michigan,  Houston  of  Texas,  Hunter  of  Virginia,  Jones  of 
Iowa,  King  of  Alabama,  Mason  of  Virginia,  Morton  of  Florida,  Norris  of 
New  Hampshire,  Pratt  of  Maryland,  Sebastian  of  Arkansas,  Shields  of  Illi 
nois,  Soule  of  Louisiana,  Spruance  of  Delaware,  Sturgeon  of  Pennsylvania, 


WHAT  BECAME   OF   THE   COMPROMISE.  155 

Turney  of  Tennessee,  Underwood  of  Kentucky,  Wales  of  Delaware,  Yulee  of 
Florida— Total,  32. 

Nays — Baldwin  of  Connecticut,  Bell  of  Tennessee,  Chase  of  Ohio,  Clarke 
of  Rhode  Island,  Davis  of  Massachusetts,  Dayton  of  New  Jersey,  Dodge  of 
Wisconsin,  Ewing  of  Ohio,  Greene  of  Rhode  Island,  Hale  of  New  Hamp 
shire,  Hamlin  of  Maine,  Miller  of  New  Jersey,  Pearce  of  Maryland,  Scward 
of  New  York,  Smith  of  Connecticut,  Upham  of  Vermont,  Walker  of  Wiscon 
sin,  Winthrop  of  Massachusetts — Total,  18. 

The  next  day  the  bill  was  passed  without  a  division.  The 
title  was  amended  to  read,  "  A  Bill  to  establish  a  Territorial 
Government  for  the  Territory  of  Utah ;"  and  the  bill  was  sent 
to  the  House. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

WHAT  BECAME   OF  THE  COMPEOMISE. 

ON  the  1st  of  August,  the  Senate,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Doug 
las,  after  debate,  proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  the  bill  and 
amendment  reported  by  him  for  the  admission  of  California. 
An  amendment  was  proposed  to  limit  her  southern  boundary 
by  the  line  of  36°  30',  which  was  rejected.  The  bill  was  de 
bated  daily  until  the  12th,  when  it  was  ordered  to  a  third  read 
ing,  and  on  the  next  day  was  passed — yeas  34,  nays  18. 

On  August  7th  Mr.  Pearce  introduced  a  bill  making  pro 
posals  to  Texas  for  the  establishment  of  her  northern  and  west 
ern  boundaries,  its  general  features  and  objects  being  the  same 
as  those  contained  in  that  part  of  the  Omnibus  Bill  relating  to 
this  question ;  and,  after  discussion  and  amendment,  the  bill, 
on  August  9th,  passed  the  Senate  by  yeas  30,  nays  20. 

As  soon  as  the  bill  for  the  admission  of  California  had  pass 
ed,  Mr.  Douglas  moved  to  take  up  the  bill  to  .establish  a  Ter 
ritorial  Government  for  New  Mexico.  The  motion  prevailed, 
and  that  bill  was  considered  by  the  Senate,  and  on  the  15th 
of  August  was  read  a  third  time  and  passed — yeas  27,  nays  10. 

The  Fugitive  Slave  Bill  was  taken  up  on  August  15th ;  was 
ordered  to  a  third  reading  on  the  23d  by  a  vote  of  yeas  27, 
nays  12,  and  passed  on  the  26th  without  a  division. 

On  the  28th  of  August  the  Bill  to  Suppress  the  Slave-trade 
in  the  District  of  Columbia,  being  the  last  of  the  series  of 
measures  recommended  by  Mr.  Clay's  committee  of  thirteen, 
was  taken  up  in  the  Senate.  During  its  consideration  Mr. 
Seward  moved  as  a  substitute  a  bill  abolishing  slavery  in  the 


156  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

District  of  Columbia,  which  proposition  was  debated  at  great 
length.  The  amendment  was  rejected,  but  five  senators  vot 
ing  for  it,  viz.,  Chase,  Dodge  of  Wisconsin,  Hale,  Seward,  and 
Upham. 

THE   EXCLUSION    OF   FREE   NEGKOES  BY   THE   STATES. 

During  this  debate,  the  powers  and  authority  of  South  Caro 
lina  and  Louisiana  to  prohibit  immigration  and  residence  of 
negroes  within  their  respective  limits  was  elaborately  discussed, 
the  debate  at  times  becoming  animated,  and  frequently  very 
personal.  Upon  that  point  Mr.  Douglas  said : 

' '  My  own  state  has  been  frequently  referred  to  in  this  debate  as  contain 
ing  a  provision  in  her  Constitution  similar  to  the  one  complained  of  in  South 
Carolina,  Louisiana,  and  other  states.  Illinois  has  a  provision  in  her  Con 
stitution  making  it  the  duty  of  the  Legislature  to  provide  efficient  means  for 
keeping  all  negroes  from  coming  into  the  state  who  were  not  natives  of  or 
residents  in  the  state  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  that  instrument.  Here, 
then,  is  a  clear  case  of  legislation  of  this  description  in  a  free  state.  "We, 
too,  have  a  constitutional  provision  upon  this  subject ;  and,  before  that  consti 
tutional  provision  was  adopted  by  an  overwhelming  majority  of  our  people — 
it  having  been  submitted  to  the  people  separately,  and  independent  of  the  bal 
ance  of  the  Constitution,  so  as  to  get  an  expression  of  the  popular  voice  on 
the  subject — even  before  that  provision  was  adopted,  our  laws  provided  that 
if  a  negro  came  into  the  state  he  was  required  to  procure  a  white  man  to  go 
his  security  for  good  behavior,  and  in  the  event  of  his  failing  to  give  the  se 
curity  he  was  hired  out  to  service  for  one  year  ;  if,  at  the  end  of  the  year,  he 
still  failed  to  give  it,  he  was  hired  out  for  another  year ;  and  so  on  until  he 
could  find  some  white  person  to  go  security  for  his  good  behavior,  and  that 
he  would  not  become  a  charge  upon  the  public.  Such  has  been  the  legisla 
tion  of  my  own  state  from  the  time  she  was  first  admitted  into  the  Union, 
and  I  presume  it  has  been  the  same  in  other  free  states.  Those  provisions 
were  rigidly  enforced ;  and  now,  when  I  hear  that  Massachusetts  can  not  get 
a  trial  of  the  constitutional  question  involved  in  that  legislation,  I  will  assure 
the  senators  from  that  state  that,  if  they  will  come  to  Illinois,  we  will  furnish 
them  all  the  facilities  to  test  the  constitutional  question.  We  are  willing  to 
have  the  right  tested  so  far  as  we  are  concerned.  The  trial,  then,  can  take 
place  between  two  -free  states  of  the  Union,  where  there  will  be  no  sectional 
prejudices,  no  hostile  feelings  incited,  and  where  we  can  have  a  fair  trial 
upon  the  constitutional  questions  involved.  We  believe  that  we  have  a  right 
to  pass  all  those  laws  that  we  deem  necessary  to  the  quiet  and  peace  of  our 
own  community.  These  laws  are  passed  among  us  as  police  regulations  ;  they 
are  executed  as  such.  There  is  no  difficulty  in  having  a  trial  there,  and  an 
appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States ;  and  then  we  can  see 
whether  we  have  the  right  or  not.  We  believe  that  we  have  the  right.  We 
border  upon  slave  states  upon  two  sides.  We  do  not  wish  to  make  our  state 
an  asylum  for  all  the  old,  and  decrepit,  and  broken  down  negroes  that  may 
be  sent  to  it.  We  desire  every  other  state  to  take  care  of  her  own  negroes, 
whether  free  or  slave,  and  we  will  take  care  of  ours.  That  law  was  adopted 
for  the  purpose  of  preventing  other  states  inundating  and  colonizing  Illinois 
with  free  negroes.  We  do  not  believe  it  to  be  wise  and  politic  to  hold  out 
inducements  for  that  class  of  people  to  come  and  live  among  us.  Those  who 
have  been  born  in  the  state,  or  who  were  resident  there  at  the  time  of  the 


WHAT   BECAME    OP   THE   COMPROMISE.  157 

enactment  of  these  laws,  are  protected  in  the  enjoyment  of  all  their  civil 
rights,  but  they  are  not  placed  upon  an  equality  with  the  whites.  They  are 
not  permitted  to  serve  on  juries,  or  in  the  militia,  or  to  vote  at  elections,  or 
to  exercise  any  other  political  rights.  They  are  recognized  as  inhabitants, 
and  protected  as  such  in  all  their  rights  of  person  and  property.  While  we 
protect  those  who  are  there,  and  their  posterity,  we  do  not  intend  to  be  inun 
dated  by  colonies  of  negroes  from  other  states,  sent  to  us  in  order  to  get  rid 
of  the  trouble  of  them  at  home. 

It  is  for  this  reason  that  Illinois  has  adopted  this  system  of  legislation,  and, 
having  adopted  it,  we  do  not  desire  to  insist  on  it  unless  it  is  consistent  with 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  We  are  willing  to  have  that  question 
tested.  We  invite  any  gentleman  who  deems  it  right  to  oppose  these  laws 
to  bring  his  suit.  We  will  furnish  him  all  facilities  for  having  the  question 
decided,  and  then  we  shall  know  whether  the  right  exists  or  not.  I  would 
much  have  preferred  this  question  should  have  arisen  between  two  of  the  free 
states  of  the  Union,  when  there  would  have  been  no  pi-ejudices  or  sectional 
jealousies,  or  other  improper  motives  to  enter  into  it  to  bias  our  judgment 
and  excite  our  passions,  than  to  see  it  arrayed  here  as  one  of  the  sectional 
questions  between  the  North  and  the  South." 

On  the  16th  of  September  this  bill  was  passed — yeas  33, 
nays  19.  All  these  bills  were  acted  upon  favorably  by  the 
House,  and  were  approved  by  the  President. 

Pending  the  question  on  the  passage  of  this  last  bill,  the  fol 
lowing  remarks  were  made  in  the  debate : 

Mr.  Benton.  I  wish  this  morning  to  make  a  remark  which  is  called  for  by 
what  has  taken  place.  I  am  one  of  those  who  insisted,  both  as  a  matter  of 
right  and  as  a  matter  of  expediency,  that  certain  bills,  commonly  called  the 
Omnibus,  should  be  separated,  and  treated  on  their  own  merits.  I  was  an 
swered  by  arguments  of  expediency,  that  the  bills  would  pass  sooner  all  to 
gether,  and  that  thereby  a  better  effect  would  be  produced  in  settling  the 
public  mind.  I  disagreed  with  those  arguments,  and  I  then  brought  upon 
myself  a  great  deal  of  censure  in  some  parts  of  the  country,  and  especially  in 
my  own  state.  The  thing  is  now  over ;  the  votes  have  been  taken,  and  the 
results  tell  what  history  will  tell,  that  I  was  right  in  every  thing  that  I  said. 
We  have  had  votes  upon  every  subject,  and,  when  separated,  every  subject 
passed — passed  quickly,  without  a  struggle,  and  by  a  great  majority ;  and  the 
effect  on  the  public  mind  has  been  just  as  sedative  as  if  the  whole  dose  had 
been  taken  at  once ;  and,  sir,  when  we  come  to  look  into  the  yeas  and  nays 
on  the  four  leading  measures,  the  admission  of  California,  the  Territorial 
government  for  Utah  and  New  Mexico,  and  the  settlement  of  the  Texan 
Boundary  question,  we  find  that  the  yeas  who  voted  for  all  the  four  measures 
amount  to  just  seventeen !  and,  counting  in  one  who  was  absent  (Mr.  Clay), 
they  would  have  been  just  eighteen — eighteen  out  of  sixty.  That  there  may 
be  no  mistake  about  it,  I  will  read  the  names,  so  that,  if  I  am  wrong  in  any 
particular,  I  may  be  corrected.  Those  who  voted  for  all  the  measures  are 
Messrs.  Bradbury,  Bright,  Cass,  Cooper,  Dodge,  Dickinson,  Douglas,  Felch, 
Houston,  Jones,  Mangum,  Norris,  Shields,  Spruance,  Sturgeon,  Wales,  and 
Whitcomb — just  seventeen,  and  the  one  absent  would  make  eighteen.  And 
that  I  hold  to  be  the  true  strength  of  the  Omnibus  Bill,  as  proved  by  the  re 
sult  when  every  memberw  as  at  liberty  to  vote  precisely  as  he  thought  right, 
uninfluenced  by  any  other  consideration  than  what  belonged  to  the  bill  itself. 
Then,  with  respect  to  the  committee  of  thirteen,  I  find  there  were  only  five 
of  them  voting  for  the  whole  of  these  measures ;  and  I  will  read  their  names, 


158  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

so  that,  if  there  be  any  mistake,  I  may  be  corrected :  they  were  Messrs. 
Bright,  Cass,  Cooper,  Dickinson,  and  Dodge  of  Iowa.  So  that  there  were 
only  five  of  the  committee  out  of  thirteen  who  voted  for  all  of  these  bills ;  one 
of  them  (Mr.  Webster)  being  absent  by  reason  of  accepting  a  cabinet  appoint 
ment,  and  another  for  his  health.  Now,  sir,  the  majority  by  which  these 
bills  passed  severally  were  these :  Utah  by  a  majority  of  eighteen ;  Texas 
Boundary  by  a  majority  of  ten ;  California  by  a  majority  of  sixteen ;  and  New 
Mexico  by  a  majority  of  seventeen.  I  give  these  results  for  the  purpose  of 
justifying  myself  in  standing  out  for  what  I  considered  to  be  a  parliamentary 
law  in  originally  wishing  to  separate  all  these  bills,  and  I  now  say  that  the 
result  has  confirmed  every  thing  I  said  upon  this  floor. 

Mr,  Dodge  of  Iowa.  I  rise  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  the  senator  from 
Missouri.  I  wish  to  say,  as  a  historical  fact,  that  I  was  not  one  of  the  com 
mittee  of  thirteen. 

Mr.  Benton.  Ah  !  then  that  makes  my  position  so  much  the  stronger,  and 
reduces  the  number  to  four  out  of  the  whole  thirteen. 

Mr.  Davis  of  Mississippi.  While  gentlemen  are  dividing  the  honors  that 
result  from  the  passage  of  these  bills,  either  in  a  joint  or  separate  form,  I 
have  only  to  say  that,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  they  are  welcome  to  the 
whole.  I  do  not  represent  that  public  opinion  which  required  the  passage 
of  them,  either  jointly  or  separately.  If  any  man  has  a  right  to  be  proud  of 
the  success  of  these  measures,  it  is  the  senator  from  Illinois  (Mr.  Douglas). 
They  were  brought  before  the  Senate  by  the  committee,  which  it  is  claimed 
has  done  so  much  for  the  honor  of  the  Senate  and  the  peace  of  the  country, 
merely  stuck  together — the  work  of  other  men,  save  and  except  the  little  bill 
to  suppress  the  slave-trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  I  merely  wish  to  say 
that,  so  far  as  the  public  opinion  of  the  community  which  I  represent  has  been 
shadowed  forth  in  public  meetings  and  in  the  public  press,  it  has  been  wholly 
adverse  to  the  great  body  of  these  measures.  I  voted  for  one — that  which 
the  senator  from  Virginia  originated,  and  which  was  modified  in  the  Senate 
till  I  thought,  as  far  as  we  could  make  it  so,  it  became  efficient  for  the  pro 
tection  of  our  rights.  That  was  the  only  one  which  met  my  approval. 


ME.  DOUGLAS   ON  THE   COMPROMISE  AFTER  ITS   ADOPTION. 

During  the  summer  and  fall  of  1851  an  animated  contest  for 
governor  had  taken  place  in  Mississippi ;  Mr.  Foote  had  been 
the  candidate  of  those  who  in  that  state  approved  those  meas 
ures,  and  he  had  been  elected.  His  duties  as  governor  did  not 
commence  until  January ;  he  therefore  appeared  in  the  Senate 
at  the  opening  of  the  session  in  1851-'2,  and  on  the  4th  of 
that  month  submitted  a  resolution  declaring  that,  in  the  opin 
ion  of  Congress,  the  measures  of  adjustment  adopted  in  1850 
were  a  settlement  of  the  questions  embraced  in  them,  and 
which  ought  to  be  respected  and  acquiesced  in,  etc. 

Immediately  after  the  adjournment  of  Congress  after  the 
passage  of  the  compromise  measures  in  1850,  Mr.  Douglas  re 
turned  to  Illinois.  The  Northern  country  had  been  greatly 
agitated  and  excited  by  the  misrepresentations  of  the  terms, 
character,  and  requirements  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act.  It  was 


WHAT  BECAME   OF   THE   COMPROMISE.  159 

vehemently  denounced,  and  had  but  few  willing  or  competent 
defenders.  When  he  arrived  in  Chicago,  that  city  was  in  a 
tempest  of  abolition  fury.  The  excitement  was  general,  and 
the  vast  majority  of  the  people  had  been  led  to  believe  that 
the  act  was  really  and  truly  of  the  infamous  character  that  was 
represented  by  the  abolitionists.  The  city  council,  yielding  to 
the  storm,  had  passed  resolutions  denouncing  the  act  as  a  vi 
olation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  law 
of  God,  and  those  senators  and  representatives  who  voted  for 
it,  and  also  those  who  were  absent,  and,  consequently,  did  not 
vote  against  it,  as  traitors,  Benedict  Arnolds,  and  Judas  Iscar- 
iots.  The  council  also  released  the  "  citizens,  officers,  and  po 
lice  of  the  city"  from  all  obligation  to  assist  or  participate  in 
the  execution  of  the  law,  and  declared  that  "  it  ought  not  to 
be  respected  by  any  intelligent  community."  On  the  next 
night  a  mass  meeting  of  the  citizens  was  held  for  the  purpose 
of  approving  and  sanctioning  the  action  of  the  Common  Coun 
cil,  and  organizing  violent  and  successful  resistance  to  the  exe 
cution  of  the  law.  A  committee  reported  to  this  meeting  a 
series  of  resolutions  more  revolutionary  in  their  character,  and 
going  to  a  greater  extent  in  resisting  the  authority  of  the  fed 
eral  government  than  even  those  of  the  Common  Council. 
Numerous  speeches  in  support  of  the  resolutions  were  received 
with  boisterous  and  furious  applause,  pledging  their  authors 
to  resist  even  unto  "  the  dungeon  and  the  grave." 

Mr.  Douglas  appeared  upon  the  stand,  and  stated  that,  in 
consequence  of  the  action  of  the  Common  Council  and  the 
phrensied  excitement  which  seemed  to  rage  all  around  him,  he 
desired  to  be  heard  before  the  assembled  people  of  the  city  in 
vindication  of  all  the  measures  of  adjustment,  and  especially 
of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law.  He  said  he  would  not  make  a 
speech  that  night,  because  the  call  for  the  meeting  was  not 
sufficiently  broad  to  authorize  a  speech  in  defense  of  those 
measures  ;  but  he  would  avail  himself  of  that  opportunity  to 
give  notice  that  on  the  next  night  he  would  address  the  peo 
ple  of  Chicago  upon  these  subjects.  He  invited  men  of  all 
parties  and  shades  of  opinion  to  attend  and  participate  in  the 
proceedings,  and  assured  them  that  he  would  answer  every 
objection  made,  and  every  question  which  should  be  propound 
ed,  touching  the  measures  of  adjustment,  and  especially  the 
Fugitive  Bill.  After  farther  discussion,  and  much  confusion 


160  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

and  opposition,  the  meeting  was  induced  to  adjourn,  and  hear 
Mr.  Douglas's  defense  before  they  would  condemn  him.  In 
the  mean  time,  the  excitement  continued  to  increase,  and  the 
next  night  (October  23)  a  tremendous  concourse  of  people  as 
sembled — by  far  the  largest  meeting  ever  held  in  the  city — and 
Mr.  Douglas  delivered  a  speech  in  defense  of  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Act  and  other  measures.  The  meeting  then  resolved  unani 
mously  to  faithfully  carry  into  effect  the  provisions  of  the  Fugi 
tive  Slave  Law,  and  to  perform  every  other  duty  and  obliga 
tion  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The  meeting 
also  adopted,  with  only  eight  or  ten  dissenting  voices,  a  reso 
lution  repudiating  the  action  of  the  Common  Council,  and  then 
adjourned  with  nine  cheers — three  for  Douglas,  three  for  the 
Constitution,  and  three  for  the  Union. 

In  the  debate  on  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Foote,  Judge  Doug 
las  entered  into  an  explanation  of  the  causes  which  produced 
his  absence  at  the  time  when  the  vote  was  taken  on  the  pas 
sage  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  and  also  of  his  votes  for  the 
Wilmot  Proviso.  Although  these  explanations  were  made 
more  than  a  year  subsequent  to  his  speech  before  the  Chicago 
meeting,  it  is  deemed  appropriate  to  include  them  here,  and  to 
follow  them  up  by  the  speech  which  is  so  frequently  referred 
to  in  them.  This  speech  embraces  a  concise  history  of  his 
previous  action  upon  the  subject  of  slavery. 

On  the  23d  of  December,  1851,  Mr.  Foote's  resolution  being 
under  consideration,  Mr.  Douglas  addressed  the  Senate  as  fol 
lows: 

WHY   HE   DID   NOT   VOTE   FOE   THE   FUGITIVE   SLAVE   ACT. 

The  senator  from  Texas  (Mr.  Houston),  in  the  course  of  his  speech,  took 
occasion  to  say  that  he  was  the  only  senator  now  holding  a  seat  upon  this 
floor  who  voted  for  all  the  measures  of  compromise.  That  may  be  so,  for 
aught  I  know  to  the  contrary.  But  the  inference  drawn  from  that  remark, 
and  the  distinct  idea  conveyed  by  it,  do  great  injustice  to  me,  and  perhaps  to 
other  senators.  I  voted,  sir,  for  all  the  measures  of  the  compromise  but  one  ; 
and  I  undertake  to  say,  in  regard  to  that  one,  that  it  was  well  known  to  the 
Senate  before  the  measure  passed,  and  at  the  time  it  passed,  and  has  been 
distinctly  proclaimed  to  the  country  since,  that  I  would  have  voted  for  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law  if  I  could  have  been  in  the  Senate  at  the  time,  and  that 
I  was  anxious  to  be  here  for  the  purpose  of  casting  that  vote.  I  say  it  was 
distinctly  known,  because  I  had  so  declared  in  debate  prior  to  the  passage  of 
that  act ;  because  every  senator  on  both  sides  of  the  chamber  who  conversed 
"with  me  knew  that  I  was  friendly  to  the  measure ;  and  because,  when  I  re 
turned  home,  before  my  own  constituents,  I  assumed  the  responsibility  of  an 
affirmative  vote  upon  the  bill.  Yes,  sir,  the  imputation  has  been  repeatedly 
made  by  implication  on  this  floor,  and  in  express  terms  by  the  partisan  jour- 


WHAT   BECAME    OF   THE   COMPROMISE.  161 

nals,  that  all  those  whose  names  are  not  recorded  on  the  passage  of  the  bill 
dodged  the  question !  Whatever  political  sins  I  may  at  any  time  have  com 
mitted,  I  think  I  may  safely  assert  that  no  senator  ever  doubted  my  willing 
ness  to  assume  the  full  measure  of  responsibility  resulting  from  my  official  po 
sition.  The  dodging  of  votes — the  attempt  to  avoid  responsibility — is  no 
part  of  my  system  of  political  tactics.  And  yet,  sir,  the  special  organ  of  the- 
administration  has  on  several  occasions  accused  me,  in  connection  with  the 
distinguished  senator  from  Michigan,  with  having  dodged  the  vote  on  this 
bill.  In  order  to  put  this  accusation  to  rest,  once  for  all,  now  and  forever,  I 
have  concluded  to  give  a  detailed  account  of  the  circumstances  which  occa 
sioned  my  absence  at  the  time  the  bill  passed,  although  it  may  subject  me  to 
the  mortification  of  exposing  my  private  and  pecuniary  affairs  to  the  public 
view.  I  had  a  pecuniary  obligation  maturing  in  New  York  for  near  four 
thousand  dollars,  in  payment  of  property  which  I  had  purchased  in  Chicago. 
Apprehending  that  my  public  duties  with  reference  to  these  very  compromise 
questions  might  render  it  improper  to  leave  the  city  when  the  day  of  pay 
ment  arrived,  I  made  an  arrangement  with  Mr.  Maury,  President  of  the 
Bank  of  the  Metropolis,  to  arrange  the  matter  for  me  temporarily  until  my 
official  duties  would  enable  me  to  give  it  my  personal  attention.  Feeling 
entirely  secure  under  this  arrangement,  I  thought  no  more  of  it  until,  on  the 
day  the  debt  became  due,  I  received  a  note  from  Mr.  Maury,  expressing  his 
deep  regret  and  mortification  that,  in  consequence  of  the  unexpected  absence 
of  a  majority  of  the  directors  of  his  bank  on  that  day,  he  was  unable  to  carry 
out  the  arrangement.  I  thus  found  myself  suddenly  placed  in  the  position 
in  which  I  was  compelled  to  go  to  New  York  instantly,  or  to  suffer  my  note 
to  be  protested,  and  the  commercial  credit  of  my  endorser  to  be  greatly  im 
paired.  I  immediately  passed  around  the  chamber,  and  inquired  of  several 
senators  on  each  side  friendly  to  the  Fugitive  Bill  whether  I  could  venture 
to  be  absent  three  or  four  days  for  the  purpose  of  attending  to  this  item  of 
business,  and  I  received  from  them  the  uniform  answer  that  the  discussion 
would  continue  at  least  a  week,  and  probably  two  weeks  longer,  before  the 
voting  could  begin.  Relying  implicitly  upon  this  assurance,  I  went  from  the 
Senate  Chamber  directly  to  the  cars,  and,  riding  all  night,  arrived  in  New 
York  the  next  day.  Meeting  several  Illinois  friends  there,  I  was  enabled  to 
meet  the  obligation,  and  avoid  a  protest  during  the  three  days'  grace  allowed 
me  by  law.  While  dining  with  these  friends  at  the  Astor  House  on  the  day 
I  had  concluded  my  business,  one  of  them  alluded  to  the  fact  that  the  Fugi 
tive  Bill  had  been  ordered  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading  in  the  Senate. 
I  expressed  my  surprise,  and  doubted  the  correctness  of  the  statement.  He 
then  showed  me  the  paper  containing  the  telegraphic  announcement,  when  I 
immediately  rose  from  the  table,  and  told  my  friends  that  I  must  leave  for 
Washington  that  afternoon,  in  order  to  be  able  to  vote  for  the  bill  on  its  final 
passage  the  next  day.  I  left  New  York  in  the  five  o'clock  train  that  after 
noon,  and,  after  riding  all  night,  on  my  arrival  here  the  next  clay,  I  found 
that  the  final  vote  had  been  taken  the  day  previous.  I  immediately  consulted 
with  my  colleague,  now  present  (Mr.  Shields),  who  authorizes  me  to  say  that 
he  distinctly  recollects  the  conversation  in  which  I  expressed  my  deep  regret 
that  I  could  not  have  arrived  here  in  time  to  vote  for  the  bill,  and  that  I  in 
tended  then  to  ask  of  the  Senate  permission  to  explain  the  cause  of  my  ab 
sence  ;  in  reply  to  which  my  colleague  suggested  that  such  an  explanation 
would  be  entirely  unneccssay,  for  the  reason  that  it  was  well  known  to  the 
Senate  and  the  country  that  I  was  in  favor  of  the  bill ;  and  for  the  further 
reason  that  in  all  probability  the  bill  would  undergo  some  amendment  in 
the  House  of  Representatives,  which  would  require  its  being  returned  to  the 
Senate  for  concurrence,  when  I  would  have  an  opportunity  not  only  of  speak 
ing,  but  of  voting  for  the  bill.  I  acquiesced  in  this  suggestion  of  my  col- 


162  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

league,  and  for  that  reason  made  no  explanation  at  that  time.  A  few  days 
afterward,  as  you  well  know  (Mr.  Shields  being  in  the  chair),  and  as  many 
other  senators  may  recollect,  I  was  taken  ill,  and  rendered  incapable  of  being 
in  the  Senate  but  a  few  times  during  the  residue  of  the  session.  I  was  con 
fined  to  my  bed  for  several  weeks,  extending  beyond  the  adjournment,  hav 
ing  been  rendered  a  cripple  by  a  surgical  operation  on  one  hip.  So  soon  as 
I  was  able  to  be  removed,  I  was  taken  home  under  the  care  and  kind  atten 
tion  of  one  of  my  colleagues  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  Every  where 
on  my  route  I  found  the  most  boisterous  and  determined  opposition  to  the 
Fugitive  Law ;  but  nowhere  was  the  excitement  so  fierce  and  terrific  as  at 
Chicago,  where  I  had  recently  taken  up  my  residence.  There  the  press  and 
the  pulpit  had  joined  in  the  work  of  misrepresentation  and  denunciation.  A 
spirit  of  determined  resistance  had  been  incited,  and  seemed  to  pervade  the 
whole  community.  The  Common  Council  of  the  city,  in  its  official  capacity, 
had  passed  resolutions  denouncing  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  as  a  violation  of 
the  law  of  God  and  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  calling  upon  the 
police  of  the  city  to  disregard  it,  and  the  citizens  not  to  obey  it.  The  next 
night  a  meeting  of  2000  people  assembled ;  and  in  that  meeting,  in  the  midst 
of  the  most  terrific  applause,  it  was  determined  to  defy  "death,  the  dungeon, 
and  the  grave, "in  resistance  to  the  execution  of  the  law.  I  walked  into 
that  meeting,  and  from  the  stand  gave  notice  that  on  the  next  night  I  would 
appear  there  and  defend  every  measure  of  the  Compromise,  and  especially 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  from  each  and  every  objection  urged  to  it,  and  I 
called  upon  the  entire  people  of  the  city  to  come  and  hear  me.  I  told  that 
body  of  men  there  assembled,  in  the  face  of  their  denunciations  and  of  their 
threats,  that  I  was  right  and  they  were  wrong,  and  if  they  would  come  and 
hear  me  I  would  prove  it  to  them. 

The  next  night,  in  the  presence  of  4000  people,  with  the  city  council  and 
the  abolitionists  occupying  positions  in  front  of  the  stand,  which  was  partially 
'surrounded  in  the  rear  by  a  large  body  of  armed  negroes,  including  many 
fugitive  slaves,  I  stood,  and  made  the  speech  which  I  now  hold  in  my  hand, 
and  which  I  caused  to  be  laid  upon  the  table  of  every  senator  and  represent 
ative  at  the  opening  of  the  last  session  of  Congress.  In  that  speech,  if  any 
senator  will  take  the  trouble  to  read  it,  he  will  find  that  I  assumed  the  re 
sponsibility  of  an  affirmative  vote  on  the  passage  of  the  law,  and  made  the 
same  explanation  of  the  causes  of  my  absence  that  I  have  given  to-day,  and 
called  upon  the  gentlemen  whose  names  I  have  stated  to  the  Senate  as  hav 
ing  been  in  New  York  with  me  when  the  vote  was  taken,  and  who  were  in 
the  meeting  when  the  Chicago  speech  was  made,  to  confirm  my  statement  in 
regard  to  my  absence,  and  my  wish  at  that  time  to  vote  for  the  law.  You 
will  also  find  in  that  speech  that  I  vindicate  the  law  in  respect  to  both  its 
constitutionality  and  necessity ;  that  I  defend  it  as  a  whole,  and  in  all  its 
parts  ;  that  I  answer  every  objection  that  has  ever  been  urged  against  it. 
The  objections  relating  to  the  right  of  trial  by  jury,  to  the  writ  of  habeas  cor 
pus,  to  records  from  other  states,  to  the  fees  of  the  commissioners,  to  the 
pains  and  penalties,  to  the  "  higher  law" — every  objection  which  the  ingenu 
ity  and  fanaticism  of  abolitionism  could  invent,  was  fully  and  conclusively 
answered  in  that  speech — at  least  to  the  satisfaction  of  that  vast  assemblage 
of  people.  I  am  extremely  reluctant  to  speak  of  the  effect  of  my  own 
Speeches  ;  but  it  is  a  part  of  the  history  of  that  transaction,  that  the  meeting, 
comprising  three  fourths  of  all  the  legal  voters  of  the  city,  a  majority  of 
whom  had  the  night  previously  pledged  themselves  to  open  and  violent  re 
sistance,  after  the  speech  was  concluded,  unanimously  adopted  a  series  of  reso 
lutions  in  favor  of  sustaining  and  carrying  into  effect  every  provision  of  the  Con 
stitution  and  laws  in  respect  to  the  surrender  of  fugitive  slaves.  The  resolu 
tions  were  written  and  submitted  to  the  meeting  by  myself,  and  cover  the  en- 


WHAT   BECAME    OF   THE   COMPKOMISE.  163 

tire  ground.  I  will  only  detain  the  Senate  while  I  read  one  or  two  of  them, 
and  refer  to  the  pamphlet  copy  of  the  speech  for  the  whole  series.  (See 
Chicago  Speech.} 

It  only  remains  for  me  to  state  that  the  same  city  council  assembled  on 
the  next  night,  and  repealed  their  nullifying  resolutions  by  a  vote  of  twelve 
to  one. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I  have  given  you  a  detailed  account  of  my  course  in 
relation  to  the  Fugitive  Law.  I  have  no  comments  to  make  upon  it.  I  sub 
mit  the  facts,  and  leave  the  Senate  and  country  to  draw  their  own  conclu 
sions.  These  facts  are  not  now  submitted  for  the  first  time.  They  are  con 
tained  in  the  pamphlet  copy  of  the  Chicago  speech  which  I  hold  in  my  hand, 
and  which,  I  repeat,  was  laid  on  the  table  of  every  senator  and  representa 
tive  more  than  a  year  ago,  and  fifty  thousand  copies  were  distributed  by  sen 
ators  and  representatives  to  every  portion  of  the  Union.  I  may  also  be  per 
mitted  to  add  that,  so  far  as  my  knowledge  or  belief  extends,  this  was  the 
first  public  speech  ever  made  in  a  free  state  in  defense  of  the  Fugitive  Law, 
and  the  Chicago  meeting  was  the  first  public  assemblage  in  any  free  state 
that  determined  to  support  and  sustain  it.  At  Chicago  the  reaction  com 
menced.  There  rebellion  and  treason  received  their  first  check,  the  fanat 
ical  and  revolutionary  spirit  was  rebuked,  and  the  supremacy  of  the  Consti 
tution  and  laws  asserted  and  maintained.  I  claim  no  credit  for  the  part  I 
acted.  I  did  no  more  than  my  duty  as  a  citizen  and  a  senator.  I  claim  to 
have  done  my  duty,  and  for  that  I  was  entitled  to  exemption  from  the  re 
peated  charges  by  the  special  organ  of  the  administration,  and  other  partisan 
prints,  of  having  dodged  the  question.  I  never  dodge  a  question.  I  never 
shrink  from  any  responsibility  which  my  position  and  duty  justly  devolve 
upon  me.  I  never  hesitate  to  give  an  unpopular  vote,  or  to  meet  an  indig 
nant  community,  when  I  know  I  am  right.  My  political  opponents  in  my 
own  state  have  never  made  such  a  charge  against  me,  and  I  feel  that  upon 
this  point  I  can  appeal  to  the  Senate  with  perfect  safety  for  a  unanimous 
verdict  in  my  favor. 

WHY  HE  VOTED  FOE  THE  WILMOT  PEOVISO. 
Mr.  President,  while  I  am  engaged  in  the  work  of  self-defense,  I  will  refer 
to  one  other  point.  I  have  recently  seen  it  stated  in  several  papers  that  at 
some  time,  and  on  some  occasion,  I  had  been  the  advocate  and  supporter 
of  the  Wilmot  Proviso.  This  charge,  upon  investigation,  will  be  found  to 
be  as  unjust  and  unfounded  as  that  in  regard  to  the  Fugitive  Law.  In  or 
der  to  put  the  question  to  rest  and  beyond  dispute  forever,  I  will  take  a  brief 
review  of  my  course  on  the  whole  slavery  agitation,  and  show  clearly  and 
distinctly  the  principles  by  which  my  action  upon  the  subject  has  always 
been  governed.  It  is  no  part  of  my  purpose,  on  the  present  occasion,  to  vin 
dicate  the  correctness  of  my  views  and  principles,  but  simply  to  show  what 
they  are,  and  what  my  official  acts  have  been,  in  order  that  the  public  may 
judge  for  themselves.  I  have  always  opposed  the  introduction  of  the  subject 
of  slavery  into  the _  halls  of  Congress  for  any  purpose — either  for  discussion 
or  action — except  in  the  cases  specified  and  enjoined  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  as  in  the  case  of  the  reclamation  of  fugitives  from  labor. 
The  first  important  vote  I  ever  gave  in  the  House  of  Representatives  was  in 
favor  of  the  rule  excluding  abolition  petitions,  and  my  vote  stands  recorded 
against  its  repeal  at  the  time  it  was  abolished.  My  action  here  since  I 
have  been  a  member  of  the  Senate  has  been  governed  by  the  same  principle. 
Whenever  the  slavery  agitation  has  been  forced  upon  us,  I  have  always  met 
it  fairly,  directly,  and  fearlessly,  and  endeavored  to  apply  the  proper  remedy. 
Whether  the  remedy  proposed  by  me  has  always  been  the  wisest  and  most 
appropriate  is  a  fair  subject  of  discussion,  and  will  doubtless  give  rise  to  a 


164  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

wide  diversity  of  opinion.  When  the  stormy  agitation  arose  in  connection 
with  the  annexation  of  Texas,  I  originated  and  first  brought  forward  the 
Missouri  Compromise  as  applicable  to  that  Territory,  and  had  the  gratifica 
tion  to  see  it  incorporated  in  the  bill  which  annexed  Texas  to  the  United 
States.  I  did  not  deem  it  a  matter  of  much  moment  as  applicable  to  Texas 
alone,  but  I  did  conceive  it  to  be  of  vast  importance  in  view  of  the  probable 
acquisition  of  New  Mexico  and  California.  My  preference  for  the  Missouri 
Compromise  was  predicated  on  the  assumption  that  the  whole  people  of  the 
United  States  would  be  more  easily  reconciled  to  that  measure  than  to  any 
other  mode  of  adjustment ;  and  this  assumption  rested  upon  the  fact  that  the 
Missouri  Compromise  had  been  the  means  of  an  amicable  settlement  of  a 
fearful  controversy  in  1821,  which  had  been  acquiesced  in  cheerfully  and 
cordially  by  the  people  for  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century,  and  which  all 
parties  and  sections  of  the  Union  professed  to  respect  and  cherish  as  a  fair, 
just,  and  honorable  adjustment.  I  could  discover  no  reason  for  the  applica 
tion  of  the  Missouri  line  to  all  the  territory  owned  by  the  United  States  in 
1821  that  would  not  apply  with  equal  force  to  its  extension  to  the  Rio 
Grande  and  also  to  the  Pacific,  so  soon  as  we  should  acquire  the  country. 
In  accordance  with  these  views,  I  brought  forward  the  Missouri  Compromise 
at  the  session  of  1844-' 45  as  applicable  to  Texas,  and  had  the  satisfaction 
to  see  it  adopted.  Subsequently,  after  the  war  with  Mexico  had  commenced, 
and  when,  in  August,  1846,  Mr.  Wilmot  first  introduced  his  proviso,  I  pro 
posed  to  extend  the  Missouri  Compromise  to  the  Pacific  as  a  substitute  for 
the  Wilmot  Proviso.  When  the  proviso  was  voted  into  the  Two  Million  Bill 
in  opposition  to  my  vote,  I  voted  against  the  bill — which  I  would  otherwise 
have  supported — because  the  proviso  was  there.  Again,  in  1847,  when  the 
proviso  was  voted  into  the  Three  Million  Bill,  I  voted  against  the  bill  for  the 
same  reason.  The  next  time  I  had  the  opportunity  of  voting  on  the  proviso 
was  in  the  spring  of  1848,  in  the  Senate,  pending  the  ratification  of  the  treaty 
of  peace  with  Mexico,  when  it  was  offered  as  an  amendment  to  the  treaty,  I 
believe  by  a  senator  from  Connecticut,  now  not  a  member  of  this  body.  The 
record  shows  that  I  here  again  voted  against  the  proviso.  This  was  the  last 
vote  ever  taken  on  the  Wilmot  Proviso — the  last  that  ever  could  be  taken 
upon  it  as  applicable  to  the  country  acquired  from  Mexico,  for  the  reason 
that  by  this  treaty  we  acquired  the  country  without  any  such  condition  as 
that  proposed  by  Mr.  Wilmot.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Wilmot 
Proviso  not  only  proposed  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territories  while  they  re 
mained  Territories,  but  also  went  farther,  and  proposed  to  insert  a  stipulation 
in  the  treaty  with  a  foreign  power  pledging  the  faith  of  the  nation  that  sla 
very  should  never  exist  in  the  country  acquired,  either  while  it  remained  in 
the  condition  of  Territories,  or  after  it  should  have  been  admitted  into  the 
Union  as  states  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  states.  I  denounced 
this  proviso  as  being  unwise,  improper,  and  unconstitutional ;  I  never  voted 
for  it,  and  publicly  declared  that  I  never  would  vote  for  it,  even  tinder  the 
pressure  of  instructions.  The  Wilmot  Proviso  being  thus  disposed  of  forev 
er,  and  California  and  New  Mexico  having  been  acquired  without  any  condi 
tion  or  stipulation  in  respect  to  slavery,  the  question  arose  as  to  what  kind  of 
territorial  governments  should  be  established  for  those  countries.  A  domes 
tic  affliction  suddenly  called  me  from  the  capital,  and  detained  me  several 
weeks.  On  my  return  I  found  pending  before  the  Senate  the  measure 
known  as  the  Clayton  Bill.  Its  provisions  were  not  such  as  I  would  have 
proposed  as  chairman  of  the  Territorial  Committee  had  I  been  present,  yet 
it  had  the  high  merit  of  having  been  reported  with  great  unanimity  by  a 
special  committee  of  the  most  eminent  and  distinguished  members  of  the 
Senate,  fairly  representing  all  the  different  sections  and  interests  of  the 
Union.  This  fact  afforded  reason  for  the  hope  that  the  bill  might  receive 


WHAT   BECAME   OF   THE   COMPROMISE.  165 

the  sanction  of  both  houses  of  Congress,  and  thus  put  an  end  to  the  contro 
versy.  Under  the  influence  of  these  considerations,  the  bill  received  my  cor 
dial  support,  and  passed  the  Senate  by  an  overwhelming  majority,  but  was 
promptly  rejected  by  the  House  of  Representatives.  The  controversy  being 
reopened  with  increased  violence,  and  my  position  at  the  head  of  the  Terri 
torial  Committee  requiring  me  to  take  the  initiative  in  some  plan  of  fair  and 
just  settlement,  I  brought  forward  my  original  proposition  to  extend  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise  to  the  Pacific  in  the  same  sense  and  with  the  same  under 
standing  with  which  it  was  originally  adopted.  This  proposition  met  the 
approbation  of  the  Senate,  and  passed  this  body  by  a  large  majority,  but  was 
instantly  rejected  in  the  House  of  Representatives  by  a  still  larger  majority. 
The  day  of  adjournment  having  arrived,  no  farther  efforts  were  made  to  ad 
just  the  difficulty  during  that  session.  At  the  opening  of  the  next  session, 
upon  consultation  with  the  friends  of  the  measure,  it  was  generally  conceded 
— with,  perhaps,  here  and  there  an  individual  exception — that  there  was  no 
hope  left  for  the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  consequently  some  other  plan  of 
adjustment  must  be  devised.  I  was  reluctant  to  give  up  the  Missouri  Com 
promise,  having  been  the  first  to  bring  it  forward,  and  having  struggled  for 
it  in  both  houses  of  Congress  for  about  five  years.  But  public  duty  demand 
ed  that  all  considerations  of  pride  of  character  and  of  opinion  should  be  made 
subservient  to  the  public  peace  and  tranquillity.  I  gave  it  up — reluctantly, 
to  be  sure — and  conceived  the  idea  of  a  bill  to  admit  California  as  a  state, 
leaving  the  people  to  form  a  constitution  and  settle  the  question  of  slavery  i 
afterward  to  suit  themselves.  I  submitted  this  bill  to  the  then  President  of  / 
the  United  States  (Mr.  Polk),  and  have  the  satisfaction  of  stating  that  it  re-  < 
ceived  his  sanction,  and  was  introduced  by  me  with  his  approbation.  The 
great  argument  in  favor  of  this  bill  was  that  it  recognized  the  right  of  the 
people  to  determine  all  questions  relating  to  their  domestic  concerns  in  their 
own  way,  and  authorized  them  to  do  so  uninfluenced  by  executive  dictation, 
or  by  the  apprehension  that,  unless  they  decided  the  slavery  question  in  a 
particular  way,  their  application  for  admission  would  be  rejected  by  Con 
gress.  I  do  not  endorse  and  never  did  sanction  the  charge  against  the  late 
administration  of  having  used  improper  means,  or  any  means  to  influence  the 
decision  of  the  people  of  California  upon  this  question ;  but  I  do  say  that, 
had  this  bill  become  the  law  of  the  land,  no  such  charge  would  ever  have 
been  made  or  suspicion  entertained.  The  great  misfortune  is,  that  a  large 
portion  of  the  South  really  believe  that  improper  influences  were  used  to  pro 
duce  the  result  in  California.  They  do  not  deny  the  right  of  the  people  of 
California  to  make  that  decision,  but  they  insist  that  the  right  should  have 
been  exercised  freely,  and  uninfluenced  by  any  act  of  the  agents  of  the  ad 
ministration,  or  by  the  apprehension  of  an  adverse  decision  by  Congress  in  the 
event  that  they  had  decided  the  Slavery  question  otherwise.  But,  Mr.  Pres 
ident,  the  Judiciary  Committee  reported  against  and  the  Senate  refused  to 
pass  my  bill  to  admit  California  as  a  state,  leaving  the  question  of  slavery 
open  to  be  decided  afterward  by  the  people,  and  thus  cut  off  all  hope  of  ad 
justment  in  that  mode.  According  to  my  recollection,  the  next  important 
measure  which  promised  the  slightest  hope  of  giving  peace  to  the  country 
was  the  proposition  of  the  senator  from  Wisconsin,  which  is  usually  known  as 
the  "Walker  Amendment."  All  other  plans  having  failed,  as  a  last  hope  I 
came  warmly  into  the  support  of  that  proposition,  and  struggled  for  its  adop 
tion  through  that  terrible  night  session,  as  many  senators  will  recollect. 

This  brief  history  brings  us  down  to  the  commencement  of  that  memorable 
long  session  when  the  late  compromise  measures  were  adopted.  Mr.  Pres 
ident,  I  may  be  permitted  here  to  pause  and  remark  that,  during  the  period 
of  five  years  that  I  was  laboring  for  the  adoption  of  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
my  votes  on  the  Oregon  question,  and  upon  all  incidental  questions  touching 


166  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

slavery,  were  given  with  reference  to  a  settlement  on  that  basis,  and  are  con 
sistent  with  it.  If,  therefore,  any  gentleman  has  the  curiosity  or  wish  to  un 
derstand  the  meaning  of  any  or  all  the  votes  I  had  occasion  to  give  during 
that  period  on  this  question,  he  has  only  to  bear  in  mind  the  Missouri  Com 
promise,  and  then  observe  the  perfect  harmony  between  each  vote  and  that 
measure. 

Now,  sir,  I  approach  the  history  of  the  compromise  measures.  My  account 
will  be  bi-ief  and  easily  understood.  Having  again  been  placed  by  the  Sen 
ate  at  the  head  of  the  Territorial  Committee,  it  became  my  duty  to  prepare 
and  submit  some  plan  of  adjustment.  Early  in  December,  within  the  first  two 
or  three  weeks  of  the  session,  I  wrote,  and  laid  before  my  committee  for  their 
examination  and  approval,  two  bills — one  for  the  admission  of  California  into 
the  Union,  and  the  other  containing  three  distinct  measures  :  first,  for  the  es 
tablishment  of  a  Territorial  government  for  Utah ;  second,  for  the  establish 
ment  of  a  Territorial  government  for  New  Mexico ;  and,  third,  for  the  settle 
ment  of  the  Texas  Boundary.  These  bills  remained  before  the  Committee 
on  Territories  from  the  month  of  December  until  the  25th  of  March  before  I 
could  obtain  the  consent  of  the  committee  to  report  them.  On  that  day  I 
reported  those  bills,  each  member  of  the  committee  reserving  the  right  to  op 
pose  any  portion  of  them  his  judgment  should  disapprove  of,  and  I  being  the 
only  member  who  was  responsible  for  all  the  provisions  of  those  two  bills. 
Those  bills  were  on  my  motion  ordered  to  be  printed,  and  laid  on  the  table  of 
each  member  of  both  houses  of  Congress.  These  printed  bills  having  lain  on 
your  table  about  four  weeks,  the  Senate,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Foote,  appointed 
a  committee  of  thirteen,  with  the  distinguished  senator  from  Kentucky  (Mr. 
Clay)  at  its  head.  That  committee  took  my  two  printed  bills,  joined  them 
together  with  a  wafer,  and  reported  them  to  the  Senate  as  one  bill,  which  is 
well  known  to  the  country  as  the  "  Omnibus  Bill."  If  any  gentleman  has 
the  curiosity  to  investigate  this  matter,  he  can  walk  to  the  secretary's  table 
and  inspect  the  original  Omnibus  Bill.  He  will  find  that  it  consists  of  two 
printed  bills  with  a  wafer  between  them,  and  a  black  line  drawn  through  the 
words  "Mr.  Douglas,  from  the  Committee  on  Territories,"  and  in  lieu  of 
them  are  inserted  these  other  words :  ' '  Mr.  CLAY,  from  the  Committee  of 
Thirteen,"  reported  the  following  bill.  The  committee  had  also  made  some 
slight  and  comparatively  unimportant  amendments,  nearly  all  of  which  were 
disagreed  to  by  the  Senate.  The  Committee  of  Thirteen,  therefore,  did  not 
originate  or  write  any  one  measure  contained  in  the  omnibus.  They  availed 
themselves  of  the  labors  of  the  Committee  on  Territories,  and  their  distin 
guished  chairman  did  us  the  justice  so  to  state  at  the  time  he  reported  the  bill. 
The  Committee  of  Thirteen  put  a  wafer  between  our  bills,  and  the  Senate 
took  out  the  wafer  and  passed  them  separately.  I  supported  the  omnibus  as 
a  joint  measure.  I  also  supported  each  measure  separately.  I  had  no  pride 
of  opinion  that  the  bills  should  be  passed  in  the  precise  form  I  had  reported 
them.  I  desired  to  see  the  controversy  terminated,  and  was  willing  to  take 
the  measure  jointly  or  separately,  or  in  any  form  in  which  they  could  pass 
both  houses  of  Congress.  I  reported  them  separately  because  I  had  ascer 
tained  the  fact  from  actual  count  that  they  could  pass  separately,  and  could 
never  pass  jointly. 

Mr.  President,  I  claim  no  credit  for  having  originated  and  proposed  the 
measures  contained  in  the  omnibus.  There  was  no  peculiar  or  remarkable 
feature  in  them.  They  were  merely  ordinary  measures  of  legislation,  well 
adapted  to  the  circumstances,  and  their  sole  merit  consisted  in  the  fact  that 
separately  they  could  pass  both  houses  of  Congress.  Being  responsible  for 
these  bills,  as  they  came  from  the  hands  of  the  Committee  on  Territories,  I 
wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  and  of  the  country  to  the  fact  that 
they  contained  no  prohibition  of  slavery — no  provision  upon  the  subject,  And 


WHAT   BECAME    OF   THE   COMPEOMISE.  167 

now  I  come  to  the  main  point,  which  explains  the  object  of  the  detailed  state 
ment  which  I  have  just  made.  The  Legislature  of  Illinois,  by  a  combination 
of  every  Whig  in  each  house  with  a  few  Free-soil  Democrats,  had  passed  a 
resolution  instructing  me  to  vote  for  a  bill  for  the  government  of  the  territory 
acquired  from  Mexico  which  should  contain  an  express  prohibition  of  slavery 
in  said  Territory.  The  instruction  did  not  go  to  the  extent  of  the  Wilmot 
Proviso  by  attempting  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  states  as  well  as  the  Terri 
tories,  but  the  movers  of  it  contented  themselves  with  the  provision  that 
slavery  should  be  prohibited  in  the  Territories  while  they  remained  such, 
leaving  the  people  to  do  as  they  pleased  when  they  became  a  state.  Yet 
the  instruction  was  designed  and  deemed  sufficient  to  compel  me  to  resign 
my  seat  and  give  place  to  a  Free-soiler,  for  there  could  have  been  no  expecta 
tion  of  their  electing  a  Whig.  They  knew  my  inflexible  opposition  to  the 
principle  asserted  in  the  instructions,  at  the  same  time  that  they  knew  that 
the  right  of  instruction  was  the  settled  doctrine  of  both  parties  in  my  state, 
which  no  man  could  repudiate  with  safety.  Knowing  that  this  combination 
of  Whigs  and  Free-soilers  flattered  themselves  that  they  had  succeeded  in  a 
party  trick  which  would  drive  me  from  the  Senate  and  give  place  to  a  Free- 
soiler  who  would  come  here  and  carry  out  abolition  doctrines,  I  confess  that 
they  would  have  succeeded  in  their  plot  had  I  been  certain  that  all  the  meas 
ures  of  the  Compromise  could  have  been  passed  without  my  vote  and  in  op 
position  to  the  vote  of  an  abolitionist  in  my  place.  Notwithstanding  these 
instructions,  I  wrote  the  bills  and  reported  them  from  the  Committee  on  Ter 
ritories  without  the  prohibitions,  in  order  that  the  record  might  show  what 
my  opinions  were ;  but,  lest  the  trick  might  fail,  a  Free-soil  senator  offered 
an  amendment  in  the  precise  language  of  my  instructions.  I  knew  that  the 
amendment  could  not  prevail,  even  if  my  colleague  and  myself  recorded  the 
vote  of  our  state  in  its  favor. 

But  if  I  resigned  my  place  to  an  abolitionist,  it  was  almost  certain  that  the 
bills  would  fail  on  their  passage.  After  consulting  with  my  colleague  and 
with  many  senators  friendly  to  the  bills,  I  came  to  the  conclusion  that  duty 
required  that  I  should  retain  my  seat.  I  was  prepared  to  fight  and  defy  ab 
olitionism  in  all  its  forms,  but  I  was  not  willing  to  repudiate  the  settled  doc 
trine  of  my  state  in  regard  to  the  right  of  instruction.  Before  the  vote  was 
taken,  I  made  a  speech  reviewing  my  course  on  the  Slavery  question  and  de 
fining  my  position.  I  denounced  the  doctrine  of  the  amendment,  declared 
my  unalterable  opposition  to  it,  and  gave  notice  that  any  vote  which  might 
be  recorded  in  my  name  seemingly  in  its  favor  would  be  the  vote  of  those 
who  gave  the  instructions,  and  not  my  own.  Under  this  protest,  I  recorded 
a  vote  for  this  and  one  or  two  other  amendments  embracing  the  same  prin 
ciple,  and  then  renewed  my  protest  against  them,  and  gave  notice  that  I 
should  not  hold  myself  responsible  for  them.  Immediately  on  my  return 
home  to  my  constituents,  and  in  that  same  Chicago  speech  to  which  I  have 
referred,  I  renewed  my  protest  against  those  votes,  and  repeated  the  notice 
to  that  excited  and  infuriated  meeting  that  they  were  their  votes  and  not 
mine.  I  will  detain  the  Senate  a  moment  while  I  read  a  passage  from  that 
speech.  Speaking  of  the  Territorial  bills,  I  say —  [Mr.  Douglas  then 
quoted  from  his  Chicago  speech  those  portions  referring  to  the  powers  of  the 
Legislature  of  the  Territories.] 

This  speech  was  immediately  printed,  and  circulated  all  over  the  state.  I 
at  the  same  time  traveled  over  a  good  portion  of  the  state,  and  made  many 
speeches  of  the  same  tenor,  the  last  of  which  was  made  in  the  capital  of  our 
state.  A  few  weeks  afterward  the  Legislature  assembled,  and  one  of  their 
first  acts  was  to  repeal  the  resolutions  of  instructions  to  which  I  have  refer 
red,  and  to  pass  resolutions  approving  of  the  course  of  my  colleague  and  my 
self  on  the  compromise  measures  by  a  vote  of  three  or  four  to  one.  From 


168  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS. 

that  day  Illinois  has  stood  firm  and  unwavering  in  support  of  the  compromise 
measures  and  of  all  the  compromises  of  the  Constitution. 

THE   CHICAGO   SPEECH. 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  speech  made  by  Judge  Doug 
las  to  the  excited  meeting  in  Chicago  on  the  23d  of  October, 
1850.  The  report  was  written  out  next  day,  and  much  that 
was  said  is  omitted.  The  argument,  however,  is  preserved,  and, 
as  a  whole,  it  will  not  surprise  the  reader  that  it  produced  a 
powerful  effect  upon  a  people  who,  really  and  truly  loyal  to 
the  Constitution,  had  been  misled  and  induced  to  acts  of  folly 
by  the  persevering  misrepresentations  of  the  abolitionists. 
Four  years  later,  these  fanatics,  profiting  by  their  fatal  expe 
rience  in  allowing  Judge  Douglas  to  defend  himself  before  the 
people,  took  care  to  prevent  another  conversion  of  public  sen 
timent,  and  refused  to  let  him  be  heard.  The  following  is  the 
speech : 

The  agitation  on  the  subject  of  slavery  now  raging  through  the  hreadth  of 
the  land  pi-esents  a  most  extraordinary  spectacle.  Congress,  after  a  pro 
tracted  session  of  nearly  ten  months,  succeeded  in  passing  a  system  of  meas 
ures,  which  are  believed  to  be  just  to  all  parts  of  the  republic,  and  ought  to 
be  satisfactory  to  the  people.  The  South  has  not  triumphed  over  the  North, 
nor  has  the  North  achieved  a  victory  over  the  South.  Neither  party  has 
made  any  humiliating  concessions  to  the  other.  Each  has  preserved  its 
honor,  while  neither  has  surrendered  an  important  right,  or  sacrificed  any 
substantial  interest.  The  measures  composing  the  scheme  of  adjustment  are 
believed  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  principles  of  justice  and  the  Constitution. 

And  yet  we  find  that  the  agitation  is  reopened  in  the  two  extremes  of  the 
Union  with  renewed  vigor  and  increased  violence.  In  some  of  the  Southern 
States,  special  sessions  of  the  Legislatures  are  being  called  for  the  purpose 
-of  organizing  systematic  and  efficient  measures  of  resistance  to  the  execution 
of  the  laws  of  the  land,  and  for  the  adoption  of  disunion  as  the  remedy.  In 
the  Northern  States,  municipal  corporations,  and  other  organized  bodies  of 
men,  are  nullifying  the  acts  of  Congress,  and  raising  the  standard  of  rebel 
lion  against  the  authority  of  the  federal  government. 

At  the  South,  the  measures  of  adjustment  are  denounced  as  a  disgraceful 
surrender  of  Southern  rights  to  Northern  abolitionism. 

At  the  North,  the  same  measures  are  denounced  with  equal  violence  as  a 
total  abandonment  of  the  rights  of  freemen  to  conciliate  the  slave  power. 

The  Southern  disunionists  repudiate  the  authority  of  the  highest  judicial 
tribunal  on  earth  upon  the  ground  that  it  is  a  pliant  and  corrupt  instrument 
in  the  hands  of  Northern  fanaticism. 

The  Northern  nullifiers  refuse  to  submit  the  points  at  issue  to  the  same 
exalted  tribunal  upon  the  ground  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  is  a  corrupt  and  supple  instrument  in  the  hands  of  the  Southern  slave- 
ocracy. 

For  these  contradictory  reasons  the  people  in  both  sections  of  the  Union 
are  called  upon  to  resist  the  laws  of  the  land  and  the  authority  of  the  federal 
government  by  violence,  even  unto  death  and  disunion. 

Strange  and  contradictory  positions ! 


WHAT  BECAME   OF  THE   COMPROMISE.  169 

Both  can  not  be  true,  and  I  trust  in  God  neither  may  prove  to  be.  We 
have  fallen  on  evil  times,  when  passion,  and  prejudice,  and  ambition  can  so 
blind  the  judgments  and  deaden  the  consciences  of  men  that  the  truth  can 
not  be  seen  and  felt.  The  people  of  the  North  or  the  South,  or  both,  are 
acting  under  a  total  delusion.  Should  we  not  pause  and  reflect,  and  con 
sider  whether  we,  as  well  as  they,  have  not  been  egregiously  deceived  upon 
this  subject  ?  It  is  my  purpose  this  evening  to  give  a  candid  and  impartial 
exposition  of  these  measures,  to  the  end  that  the  truth  may  be  known.  It 
does  not  become  a  free  people  to  rush  madly  and  blindly  into  violence,  and 
bloodshed,  and  death,  and  disunion,  without  first  satisfying  our  consciences 
upon  whose  souls  the  guilty  consequences  must  rest. 

The  measures  known  as  the  adjustment  or  compromise  scheme  are  six  in 
number : 

1.  The  admission  of  California,  with  her  free  Constitution. 

2.  The  erection  of  a  Territorial  government  for  Utah,  leaving  the  people  to 
regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions. 

3.  The  creation  of  a  Territorial  government  for  New  Mexico,  with  like 
provisions.  '  • 

4.  The  adjustment  of  the  disputed  boundary  with  Texas. 

5.  The  abolition  of  the  slave-trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia.      •  • 

6.  The  Fugitive  Slave  Bill. 

The  first  three  of  these  measures — California,  Utah,  and  New  Mexico — I 
prepared  with  my  own  hands,  and  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Territo 
ries,  as  its  chairman,  in  the  precise  shape  in  which  they  now  stand  on  the 
statute-book,  with  one  or  two  unimportant  amendments,  foT~w1rhrh-  -I--also 
voted.  I  therefore  hold  myself  responsible  to  you,  as  my  constituents,  for 
those  measures  as  they  passed.  If  there  is  any  thing  wrong  in  them,  hold 
me  responsible ;  if  there  is  any  thing  of  merit,  give  the  credit  to  those  who 
passed  the  bills.  These  measures  are  predicated  on  the  great  fundamental 
principle  that  every  people  ought  to  possess  the  right  of  forming  and  regula 
ting  their  own  internal  concerns  and  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way. 
It  was  supposed  that  those  of  our  fellow-citizens  who  emigrated  to  the  shores 
of  the  Pacific  and  to  our  other  Territories  were  as  capable  of  self-government 
as  their  neighbors  and  kindred  whom  they  left  behind  them ;  and  there  was  no 
reason  for  believing  that  they  have  lost  any  of  their  intelligence  or  patriotism 
by  the  wayside,  while  crossing  the  Isthmus  or  the  Plains.  It  was  also  be 
lieved  that,  after  their  arrival  in  the  country,  when  they  had  become  familiar 
with  its  topography,  climate,  productions,  and  resources,  and  had  connected 
their  destiny  with  it,  they  were  fully  as  competent  to  judge  for  themselves 
what  kind  of  laws  and  institutions  were  best  adapted  to  their  condition  and 
interests,  as  we  were,  who  never  saw  the  country,  and  knew  very  little  about  it. 
To  question  their  competency  to  do  this  was  to  deny  their  capacity  for  self- 
government.  If  they  have  the  requisite  intelligence  and  honesty  to  be  in 
trusted  with  the  enactment  of  laws  for  the  government  of  white  men,  I  know 
of  no  reason  why  they  should  not  be  deemed  competent  to  legislate  for  the 
negro.  If  they  are  sufficiently  enlightened  to  make  laws  for  the  protection 
of  life,  liberty,  and  property — of  morals  and  education — to  determine  the  re 
lation  of  husband  and  wife — of  parent  and  child — I  am  not  aware  that  it  re 
quires  any  higher  degree  of  civilization  to  regulate  the  affairs  of  master  and 
servant.  These  things  are  all  confided  by  the  Constitution  to  each  state  to 
decide  for  itself,  and  I  know  of  no  reason  why  the  same  principle  should  not 
be  extended  to  the  Territories.  My  votes  and  acts  have  been  in  accordance 
with  these  views  in  all  cases,  except  the  instances  in  which  I  voted  under 
your  instructions.  Those  were  your  votes,  and  not  mine.  I  entered  my 
protest  against  them  at  the  time — before  and  after  they  were  recorded — and 
shall  never  hold  myself  responsible  for  them.  I  believed  then,  and  believe 

H 


170  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

now,  that  it  was  better  for  the  cause  of  freedom,  of  humanity,  and  of  Repub 
licanism,  to  leave  the  people  interested  to  settle  all  these  questions  for  them 
selves.  They  have  intellect  and  consciences  as  well  as  we,  and  have  more 
interest  in  doing  that  which  is  best  for  themselves  and  their  posterity,  than 
we  have  as  their  self-constituted  and  officious  guardians.  I  deem  it  fortunate 
for  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  country  that  Congress,  taking  the  same 
view  of  the  subject,  rejected  the  proviso,  and  passed  the  bills  in  the  shape  in 
which  I  originally  reported  them.  So  far  as  slavery  is  concerned,  I  am  sure 
that  any  man  who  will  take  the  pains  to  examine  the  history  of  this  question 
will  come  to  the  conclusion  that  this  is  the  true  policy,  as  well  as  the  sound 
Republican  doctrinjp  Mr.  Douglas  here  went  into  a  historical  view  of  the 
subject,  to  show  that  slavery  had  never  been  excluded  in  fact  from  one  inch 
of  the  American  continent  by  act  of  Congress,  after  which  he  said :  ^ 

But  let  us  return  to  the  measures  immediately  under  discussion.  (It  must 
be  conceded  that  the  question  of  the  admission  of  California  was  not  free  from 
difficulty,  independent  of  the  subject  of  slavery.  There  were  many  irregu 
larities  in  the  proceedings ;  in  fact,  every  step  in  her  application  for  admission 
was  irregulai'ywhen  viewed  with  reference  to  a  literal  compliance  with  the 
most  approved  rules  and  usages  in  the  admission  of  new  states.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  resulted  from  the  necessity  of  the 
case.  Congress  had  failed  to  perform  its  duty — had  established  no  Territorial 
government,  and  made  no  provision  for  her  admission  into  the  Union.  She 
was  left  without  government,  and  was  therefore  Compelled  to  provide  one  for 
herself.  She  could  not  conform  to  rules  which  had  not  been  established,  nor 
comply  with  laws  which  Congress  had  failed  to  enact.  The  same  irregular 
ities  had  occurred,  however,  and  been  waived,  in  the  admission  of  other 
states  under  peculiar  circumstances.  True,  they  had  not  all  occurred  in  the 
case  of  any  one  state ;  but  some  had  in  one,  others  in  another ;  so  that,  by 
looking  into  the  circumstances  attending  the  admission  of  each  of  the  new 
states,  we  find  that  all  of  these  irregularities,  as  they  are  called,  had  inter 
vened  and  been  waived  in  the  course  of  our  legislative  history.  Besides,  the 
Territory  of  California  was  too  extensive  for  one  state  (if  we  are  to  adopt 
the  old  states  as  a  guide  in  carving  out  new  ones),  being  about  three  times 
the  size  of  New  York ;  and  her  boundaries  were  unnatural  and  unreasonable, 
disregarding  the  topography  of  the  country,  and  embracing  the  whole  mining 
region  and  her  coast  in  the  limits.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Slavery 
question  was  not  the  only  real  difficulty  that  the  admission  of  California 
presented  to  the  minds  of  calm  and  reflecting  men,  although  it  can  not  be 
denied  that  it  was  the  exciting  cause,  which  stimulated  a  large  portion  of  the 
people  in  one  section  to  demand  her  instant  admission,  and  in  the  other  to 
insist  upon  her  unconditional  rejection.  Even  in  this  point  of  view,  I  humbly 
conceive  that  the  ultras  in  each  extreme  of  the  republic  acted  under  a  mis 
conception  of  their  true  interests  and  real  policy.  The  whole  of  California — 
from  the  very  nature  of  the  country,  her  rocks  and  sands,  elevation  above  the 
sea,  climate,  soil,  and  productions — was  bound  to  be  free  territory  by  the  de 
cision  of  her  own  people,  no  matter  when  admitted  or  how  divided.  Hence, 
if  considered  with  reference  to  the  preponderance  of  political  power  between 
the  free  and  slaveholding  states,  it  was  manifestly  the  true  policy  of  the  South 
to  include  the  whole  country  in  one  state,  while  the  same  reasons  should  have 
induced  the  North  to  subdivide  it  into  as  many  states  as  the  extent  of  the  ter 
ritory  would  justify.  But,  in  my  opinion,  it  was  not  proper  for  Congress  to 
act  upon  any  such  principle.  We  should  know  no  North,  no  South,  in  our 
legislation,  but  look  to  the  interests  of  the  whole  country.  By  our  action  in 
this  case,  the  rights  and  privileges  of  California  and  the  Pacific  coast  were 
principally  to  be  affected.  By  erecting  the  country  into  one  state  instead  of 
three,  the  people  are  to  be  represented  in  the  Senate  by  two  in  the  place  of 


WIIAT  BECAME   OF  THE   COMPROMISE.  171 

six  senators.     If  their  interests  suffer  in  consequence,  they  can  blame  no  one  i 
but  themselves,  for  Congress  only  confirmed  what  they  had  previously  done.  « 
The  problem  in  relation  to  slavery  should  have  been  much  more  easily  solved.  : 
It  was  a  question  which  concerned  the  people  of  California  alone.     The  other 
states  of  the  Union  had  no  interest  in  it,  and  no  right  to  interfere  with  it. 
South  Carolina  settled  that  question  within  her  own  limits  to  suit  herself; 
Illinois  has  decided  it  in  a  manner  satisfactory  to  her  own  people ;  and  upon 
what  principle  are  we  to  deprive  the  people  of  the  State  of  California  of  a' 
right  which  is  common  to  every  state  in  the  Union  ? 

The  bills  establishing  Territorial  governments  for  Utah  and  New  Mexico 
are  silent  upon  the  subject  of  slavery,  except  the  provision  that,  when  they 
should  be  admitted  into  the  Union  as  states,  each  should  decide  the  question 
of  slavery  for  itself.  This  latter  provision  was  not  incorporated  in  my  original 
bills,  for  the  reason  that  I  conceived  it  to  involve  a  principle  so  clearly  de- 
ducible  from  the  Constitution  that  it  was  unnecessary  to  embody  it  in  the 
form  of  legal  enactment.  But  when  it  was  offered  as  an  amendment  to  the 
bills,  I  cheerfully  voted  for  it,  lest  its  rejection  should  be  deemed  a  deniaj,jo£— i— 
the  principle  asserted  in  itj  The  abolitionists  of  the  North  profess  to  regard 
these  bills  as  a  total  abandonment  of  the  principles  of  freedom,  because  they 
do  not  contain  an  express  prohibition  of  slavery,  while  the  ultras  of  the  South 
denounce  the  same  measures  as  equivalent  to  the  Wilmot  Proviso. 

He  then  explained  and  defended  the  Texas  Boundary  meas 
ure,  and  the  Bill  for  the  Suppression  of  the  local  Slave-trade  in 
the  District  of  Columbia.  Pie  then  took  up  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Act,  and  said : 

DEFENSE    OF   THE   FUGITIVE    SLAVE  LAW. 

Before  I  proceed  to  the  exposition  of  that  bill,  I  will  read  the  preamble  and 
resolutions  passed  by  the  Common  Council  of  this  city  night  before  last. 

Mr.  Douglas  then  read  as  follows  : 

"  Whereas,  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  provides  that  the  privi 
lege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  shall  not  be  suspended,  unless  when,  in  cases 
of  rebellion  or  invasion,  the  public  safety  may  require  it ;  and 

"  Whereas,  The  late  act  of  Congress,  purporting  to  be  for  the  recovery  of 
fugitive  slaves,  virtually  suspends  the  habeas  corpus  and  abolishes  the  right 
of  trial  by  jury,  and  by  its  provisions  not  only  fugitive  slaves,  but  white  men, 
"owing  service"  to  another  in  another  state,  viz.,  the  apprentice,  the  me 
chanic,  the  farmer,  the  laborer  engaged  on  contract  or  otherwise,  whose  terms 
of  service  are  unexpired,  may  be  captured  and  carried  off  summarily,  and  with 
out  legal  resource  of  any  kind  ;  and 

"  Whereas,  No  law  can  be  legally  or  morally  binding  on  us  which  violates 
the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  ;  and 

"  Whereas,  Above  all,  in  the  responsibilities  of  human  life,  and  the  prac 
tice  and  propagation  of  Christianity,  the  laws  of  God  should  be  held  para 
mount  to  all  human  compacts  and  statutes  ;  Therefore, 

"  Resolved,  That  the  senators  and  representatives  in  Congress  from  the  free 
states,  who  aided  and  assisted  in  the  passage  of  this  infamous  law,  and  those 
loho  basely  sneaked  away  from  their  seats,  and  thereby  evaded  the  question,  rich 
ly  merit  the  reproach  of  all  lovers  of  freedom,  and  are  fit  only  to  be  ranked 
with  the  traitors  Benedict  Arnold  and  Judas  Iscariot,  who  betrayed  his  Lord 
and  Master  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver. 

"  And  Resolved,  That  the  citizens,  officers,  and  police  of  the  city  be,  and 
they  are  hereby,  requested  to  abstain  from  all  interference  in  the  capture  and 
delivering  up  of  the  fugitive  from  unrighteous  oppression,  of  whatever  nation, 
name,  or  color. 


172  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

"Resolved,  That  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  lately  passed  by  Congress  is  a 
cruel  and  unjust  law,  and  ought  not  to  be  respected  by  any  intelligent  com 
munity,  and  that  this  council  will  not  require  the  city  police  to  render  any 
assistance  for  the  arrest  of  fugitive  slaves. 

"Ayes — Aid.  Milliken,  Loyd,  Sherwood,  Foss,  Throop,  Sherman,  Eich- 
ards,  Brady,  and  Dodge. 

"Nays — Aid.  Page  and  Williams." 

But  for  the  passage  of  these  resolutions,  said  Mr.  D.,  I  should  not  have  ad 
dressed  you  this  evening,  nor,  indeed,  at  any  time  before  my  return  to  the 
Capitol.  I  have  no  desire  to  conceal  or  withhold  my  opinions,  no  wish  to 
avoid  the  responsibility  of  a  full  and  frank  expression  of  them,  upon  this  and 
all  other  subjects  which  were  embraced  in  the  action  of  the  last  session  of 
Congress.  My  reasons  for  wishing  to  avoid  public  discussion  at  this  time 
were  to  be  found  in  the  state  of  my  health,  and  the  short  time  allowed  me  to 
remain  among  you. 

Now  to  the  resolutions.  I  make  no  criticism  upon  the  language  in  which 
they  are  expressed ;  that  is  a  matter  of  taste,  and  in  every  thing  of  that 
kind  I  defer  to  the  superior  refinement  of  our  city  fathers.  But  it  can  not 
be  disguised  that  the  polite  epithets  of  "traitors,  Benedict  Arnold  and  Judas 
Iscariot,  who  betrayed  his  Lord  and  Master  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver, "  will 
be  understood  abroad  as  having  direct  personal  application  to  my  esteemed 
colleague,  Gen.  Shields,  and  myself.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  intention 
of  those  who  voted  for  the  resolutions,  I  will  do  the  members  of  council  the  jus 
tice  to  say  that  I  do  not  believe  they  intended  to  make  any  such  application. 
But  their  secret  intentions  are  of  little  consequence  when  they  give  their  of 
ficial  sanction  to  a  charge  of  infamy,  clothed  in  such  language  that  every  man 
who  reads  it  must  give  it  a  personal  application.  The  whole  affair,  however, 
looks  strange,  and  even  ludicrous,  when  contrasted  with  the  cordial  reception 
and  public  demonstrations  of  kindness  and  confidence,  and  even  gratitude 
for  supposed  services,  extended  to  my  colleague  and  myself  upon  our  arrival 
in  this  city  one  week  ago.  Then  we  were  welcomed  home  as  public  benefac 
tors,  and  invited  to  partake  of  a  public  dinner  by  an  invitation  numerously 
signed  by  men  of  all  parties  and  shades  of  opinion.  The  invitation  had  no 
sooner  been  declined,  for  reasons  which  were  supposed  to  be  entirely  satisfac 
tory,  and  my  colleague  started  for  his  home,  than  the  Common  Council,  who 
are  presumed  to  speak  officially  for  the  whole  population  of  the  city,  attempt 
ed  to  brand  their  honored  guests  with  infamy,  and  denounce  them  as  Bene 
dict  Arnolds  and  Judas  Iscariots !  I  have  read  somewhere  that  it  was  a  po 
lite  custom,  in  other  countries  and  a  different  age,  to  invite  those  whom  they 
secretly  wished  to  destroy  to  a  feast,  in  order  to  secure  a  more  convenient  op 
portunity  of  administering  the  hemlock  !  I  acquit  the  Common  Council  of 
any  design  of  introducing  that  custom  into  our  hospitable  city.  But  I  have 
done  with  this  subject,  so  far  as  it  has  a  personal  bearing. 

It  is  a  far  more  important  and  serious  matter,  when  viewed  with  reference 
to  the  principles  involved,  and  the  consequences  which  may  result.  The  Com 
mon  Council  of  the  city  of  Chicago  have  assumed  to  themselves  the  right,  and 
actually  exercised  the  power,  of  determining  the  validity  of  an  act  of  Congress, 
and  have  declared  it  void  upon  the  ground  that  it  violates  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  and  the  law  of  God !  They  have  gone  further ;  they  de 
clared,  by  a  solemn  official  act,  that  a  law  passed  by  Congress  "ought  not  to 
be  respected  by  any  intelligent  community,"  and  have  called  upon  "the  cit 
izens,  officers,  and  police  of  the  city"  to  abstain  from  rendering  any  aid  or  as 
sistance  in  its  execution !  What  is  this  but  naked,  unmitigated  nullification  ? 
An  act  of  the  American  Congress  nullified  by  the  Common  Council  of  the 
city  of  Chicago !  Whence  did  the  council  derive  their  authority  ?  I  have 
been  able  to  find  no  such  provision  in  the  city  charter,  nor  am  I  aware  that 


WHAT  BECAME    OP   THE   COMPROMISE.  173 

the  Legislature  of  Illinois  is  vested  with  any  rightful  power  to  confer  such  au 
thority.  I  have  yet  to  learn  that  a  subordinate  municipal  corporation  is  li 
censed  to  raise  the  standard  of  rebellion,  and  throw  off  the  authority  of  the 
federal  government  at  pleasure !  This  is  a  great  improvement  upon  South 
Carolinian  nullification.  It  dispenses  with  the  trouble,  delay,  and  expense 
of  convening  Legislatures  and  assembling  conventions  of  the  people,  for  the 
purpose  of  resolving  themselves  back  into  their  original  elements,  preparatory 
to  the  contemplated  revolution.  It  has  the  high  merit  of  marching  directly 
to  its  object,  and  by  a  simple  resolution,  written  and  adopted  on  the  same 
night,  relieving  the  people  from  their  oaths  and  allegiance,  and  of  putting  the 
nation  and  its  laws  at  defiance !  It  has  heretofore  been  supposed,  by  men  of 
antiquated  notions,  who  have  not  kept  up  with  the  progress  of  the  age,  that 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  was  invested  with  the  power  of  de 
termining  the  validity  of  an  act  of  Congress  passed  in  pursuance  of  the  forms 
of  the  Constitution.  This  was  the  doctrine  of  the  entire  North,  and  of  the 
nation,  when  it  became  necessary  to  exert  the  whole  power  of  the  government 
to  put  down  nullification  in  another  portion  of  the  Union.  But  the  spirit  of 
the  age  is  progressive,  and  is  by  no  means  confined  to  advancement  in  the  arts 
and  physical  sciences.  The  science  of  politics  and  of  government  is  also  rap 
idly  advancing  to  maturity  and  perfection.  It  is  not  long  since  that  I  heard 
an  eminent  lawyer  propose  an  important  reform  in  the  admirable  judicial  sys 
tem  of  our  state,  which,  he  thought,  would  render  it  perfect.  It  was  so  sim 
ple  and  eminently  practicable  that  it  could  not  fail  to  excite  the  admiration 
of  even  the  casual  inquirer.  His  proposition  was,  that  our  judicial  system 
should  be  so  improved  as  to  allow  an  appeal,  on  all  constitutional  questions, 
from  the  Supreme  Court  of  this  state  to  two  justices  of  the  peace  !  When 
that  shall  have  been  effected,  but  one  other  reform  will  be  necessary  to  ren 
der  our  national  system  perfect,  and  that  is,  to  change  the  federal  Constitu 
tion,  so  as  to  authorize  an  appeal,  upon  all  questions  touching  the  validity  of 
acts  of  Congress,  from  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  to  the  Com 
mon  Council  of  the  city  of  Chicago  ! 

So  much  for  the  general  principles  involved  in  the  acts  of  the  council.  I 
will  now  examine  briefly  the  specific  grounds  of  objection  urged  by  the  coun 
cil  against  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill,  as  reasons  why  it  should  not  be  obeyed. 

The  objections  are  two  in  number :  first,  that  it  suspends  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  in  time  of  peace,  in  violation  of  the  Constitution ;  secondly,  that  it 
abolishes  the  right  of  trial  by  jury. 

How  the  council  obtained  the  information  that  these  two  odious  provisions 
were  contained  in  the  law,  I  am  unable  to  divine.  One  thing  is  certain, 
that  the  members  of  the  council  who  voted  for  these  resolutions  had  never 
read  the  law,  or  they  would  have  discovered  their  mistake.  There  is  not 
one  word  in  it  in  respect  to  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  or  the  right  of  trial  by 
jury.  Neither  of  these  subjects  is  mentioned  or  referred  to.  The  law  is 
entirely  silent  on  these  points.  Is  it  to  be  said  that  an  act  of  Congress  which 
is  silent  on  the  subject  ought  to  be  construed  to  repeal  a  great  constitutional 
right  by  implication  ?  Besides,  this  act  is  only  an  amendment — amendatory 
of  the  old  law — the  act  of  1793 — but  does  not  repeal  it.  There  is  no  differ 
ence  between  the  original  act  and  the  amendment  in  this  respect.  Both  are 
silent  in  regard  to  the  writ  of  habeas  corpxis  and  the  right  of  trial  by  jury. 
If  to  be  silent  is  to  suspend  the  one  and  abolish  the  other,  then  the  mischief 
was  done  by  the  old  law  fifty-seven  years  ago.  If  this  construction  be  cor 
rect,  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  has  been  suspended,  and  trial  by  a  jury  abol 
ished,  more  than  half  a  century,  without  any  body  ever  discovering  the  fact, 
or,  if  knowing  it,  without  uttering  a  murmur  of  complaint. 

Mr.  Douglas  then  read  the  whole  of  the  act  of  1793,  and  compared  its 
provisions  with  the  amendment  of  last  session,  for  the  purpose  of  showing 


174  LIFE    OP   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

that  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  and  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  were  not  alluded 
to  or  interfered  with  by  either.  But  I  maintain,  said  Mr.  D.,  that  the  writ 
of  habeas  corpus  is  applicable  to  the  case  of  the  arrest  of  a  fugitive  under  this 
law,  in  the  same  sense  in  which  the  Constitution  intended  to  confer  it,  and 
to  the  fullest  extent  for  which  that  case  is  ever  rightfully  issued  in  any  case. 
In  this  I  am  fully  sustained  by  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Crittenden,  the  attorney 
general  of  the  United  States.  As  soon  as  the  bill  passed  the  two  houses  of 
Congress,  an  abolition  paper  raised  the  alarm  that  the  habeas  corpus  had 
been  suspended.  The  ciy  was  eagerly  caught  up,  and  transmitted  by  light 
ning  upon  the  wires  to  every  part  of  the  Union  by  those  whose  avocation  is 
agitation.  The  President  of  the  United  States,  previous  to  signing  the  bill, 
referred  it  to  the  attorney  general  for  his  opinion  upon  the  point  whether  any 
portion  of  it  violated  any  provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  especially  whether  it  could  possibly  be  construed  to  suspend  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus.  I  have  the  answer  of  the  attorney  general  before  me,  in 
which  he  gives  it  as  his  decided  opinion  that  every  part  of  the  law  is  entire 
ly  consistent  with  the  Constitution,  and  that  it  does  not  suspend  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus.  I  would  commend  the  argument  of  the  attorney  general  to 
the  careful  perusal  of  those  who  have  doubts  upon  the  subject.  Upon  the 
presentation  of  this  opinion,  and  with  entire  confidence  in  its  correctness, 
President  Fillmore  signed  the  bill. 

[Here  Mr.  Douglas  was  interrupted  by  a  person  present,  who  called  his  at 
tention  to  the  last  clause  of  the  6th  section  of  the  bill,  which  he  read,  and 
asked  him  what  construction  he  put  upon  it,  if  it  did  not  suspend  the  writ 
of  habeas  corpus.] 

Mr.  Douglas,  in  reply,  expressed  his  thanks  to  the  gentleman  who  pro 
pounded  the  inquiry.  His  object  was  to  meet  every  point,  and  remove  every 
doubt  that  could  be  possibly  raised ;  and  he  expressed  the  hope  that  every 
gentleman  present  would  exercise  the  privilege  of  asking  him  questions  upon 
all  points  upon  which  he  was  not  fully  satisfied.  He  then  proceeded  to  an 
swer  the  question  which  had  been  propounded.  That  section  of  the  bill  pro 
vides  for  the  arrest  of  the  fugitive  and  the  trial  before  the  commissioner ;  and 
if  the  facts  of  servitude,  ownership,  and  escape  be  established  by  competent 
evidence,  the  commissioner  shall  grant  a  certificate  to  that  effect,  which  cer 
tificate  shall  be  conclusive  of  the  right  of  the  person  in  whose  favor  it  is  is 
sued  to  remove  the  fugitive  to  the  state  from  which  he  fled.  Then  comes 
the  clause  which  is  supposed  to  suspend  the  habeas  corpus  :  "And  shall  pre 
vent  all  molestation  of  said  person  or  persons  by  any  process  issued  by  any  court, 
judge,  magistrate,  or  other  person  whomsoever." 

The  question  is  asked  whether  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  is  not  a  "PROC 
ESS"  within  the  meaning  of  this  act?  I  answer  that  it  undoubtedly  is  suoli 
a  "process,"  and  that  it  may  be  issued  by  any  court  or  judge  having  compe 
tent  authority — not  for  the  purpose  of  "molesting"  a  claimant,  having  a 
servant  in  his  possession,  with  such  a  certificate  from  the  commissioner  or 
judge,  but  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  fact  whether  he  has  such  cer 
tificate  or  not ;  and  if  so,  whether  it  be  in  due  form  of  law ;  and  if  not,  by 
what  authority  he  holds  the  servant  in  custody.  Upon  the  return  of  the 
writ  of  habeas  corpus,  the  claimant  will  be  required  to  exhibit  to  the  court 
his  authority  for  conveying  that  servant  back;  and  if  he  produces  a  "certif 
icate"  from  the  commissioner  or  judge  in  due  form  of  law,  the  court  will  de 
cide  that  it  has  no  power  to  "molest  the  claimant"  in  the  exercise  of  his 
rights  under  the  law  and  the  Constitution.  But  if  the  claimant  is  not  able 
to  produce  such  certificate,  or  Other  lawful  authority,  or  produces  one  which 
is  not  in  conformity  with  law,  the  court  will  set  the  alleged  servant  at  liberty, 
for  the  very  reason  that  the  law  has  not  been  complied  with.  The  sole  ob 
ject  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  is  to  ascertain  by  what  authority  a  person 


WHAT  BECAME    OF   THE   COMPROMISE.  175 

is  held  in  custody ;  to  release  him  if  no  such  authority  be  shown ;  and  to  re 
frain  from  any  molestation  of  the  claimant  if  legal  authority  be  produced. 
The  habeas  corpus  is  necessary,  therefore,  to  carry  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law 
into  effect,  and,  at  the  same  time,  to  prevent  a  violation  of  the  rights  of  free 
men  under  it.  It  is  essential  to  the  security  of  the  claimant,  as  well  as  the 
protection  of  the  rights  of  those  liable  to  be  arrested  under  it.  The  reason 
that  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  not  mentioned  in  the  bill  must  be  obvi 
ous.  The  object  of  the  new  law  seems  to  have  been  to  amend  the  old  one 
in  those  particulars  wherein  experience  had  proven  amendments  to  be  nec 
essary,  and  in  all  other  respects  to  leave  it  as  it  had  stood  from  the  days  of 
Washington.  The  provisions  of  the  old  law  have  been  submitted  to  the  test 
of  long  experience — to  the  scrutiny  of  the  bar  and  the  judgment  of  the 
courts.  The  writ  of  habeas  corpus  had  been  adjudged  to  exist  in  all  cases 
under  it,  and  had  always  been  resorted  to  when  a  proper  case  arose.  In 
amending  the  law  there  was  no  necessity  for  any  new  provision  upon  this 
subject,  because  nobody  desired  to  change  it  in  this  respect. 

But  why  this  extraordinary  effort,  on  the  part  of  the  professed  friends  of 
the  fugitive,  to  force  such  a  construction  upon  the  law,  in  the  absence  of  any 
such  obnoxious  provision,  as  to  deprive  him  of  the  benefit  of  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus  ?  The  law  does  not  do  so  in  terms ;  and  if  it  is  ever  accomplish 
ed,  it  must  be  done  by  implication,  contrary  to  the  understanding  of  those 
who  enacted,  and  in  opposition  to  the  practice  of  the  courts,  acquiesced  in 
by  the  people  from  the  foundation  of  the  government.  One  would  naturally 
suppose  that,  if  there  was  room  for  doubt  as  to  what  is  the  true  construction, 
those  who  claim  to  be  the  especial  and  exclusive  friends  of  the  negro  would 
contend  for  that  construction  which  is  most  favorable  to  liberty,  justice,  and 
humanity.  But  not  so.  Directly  the  reverse  is  the  fact.  They  exhaust 
their  learning,  and  exert  all  their  ingenuity  and  skill,  to  deprive  the  negro  of 
all  rights  under  the  law.  What  can  be  the  motive  ?  Certainly  not  to  pro 
tect  the  rights  of  the  free,  or  to  extend  liberty  to  the  oppressed;  for  they 
strive  to  fasten  upon  the  law  such  a  construction  as  would  defeat  both  of 
these  ends.  Can  it  be  a  political  scheme,  to  render  the  law  odious,  or  to  ex 
cite  prejudice  against  all  who  voted  for  it,  or  were  unavoidably  absent  when 
it  passed?  No  matter  what  the  motive,  the  effects  would  be  disastrous  to 
those  whose  rights  they  profess  to  cherish,  if  their  efforts  should  be  successful. 

Now,  a  word  or  two  in  regard  to  the  right  of  trial  by  jury.  The  city  coun 
cil,  in  their  resolutions,  say  that  this  law  abolishes  that  right.  I  have  already 
shown  you  that  the  council  are  mistaken — that  the  law  is  silent  upon  the  sub 
ject,  and  stands  now  precisely  as  it  has  stood  for  half  a  century.  If  the  law 
is  defective  on  that  point,  the  error  was  committed  by  our  fathers  in  1793, 
and  the  people  have  acquiesced  in  it  ever  since,  without  knowing  of  its  exist 
ence  or  caring  to  remedy  it.  The  new  act  neither  takes  away  nor  confers 
the  right  of  trial  by  jury.  It  leaves  it  just  where  our  fathers  and  the  Consti 
tution  left  it  under  the  old  law.  That  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  exists  in  this 
country  for  all  men,  black  or  white,  bond  or  free,  guilty  or  innocent,  no  man 
will  be  disposed  to  question  who  understands  the  subject.  The  right  is  of 
universal  application,  and  exists  alike  in  all  the  states  of  the  Union ;  it  al 
ways  has  existed,  and  always  will  exist,  so  long  as  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  shall  be  respected  and  maintained,  in  spite  of  the  efforts  of  the 
abolitionists  to  take  it  away  by  a  perversion  of  the  Fugitive  Law.  The  only 
question  is,  ivhere  shall  this  jury  trial  take  place  ?  Shall  the  jury  trial  be  had 
in  the  state  where  the  arrest  is  made,  or  the  state  from  which  the  fugitive 
escaped  ?  Upon  this  point  the  act  of  last  session  says  nothing,  and,  of 
course,  leaves  the  matter  as  it  stood  under  the  law  of  '93.  The  old  law  was 
silent  on  this  point,  and  therefore  left  the  courts  to  decide  it  in  accordance 
with  the  Constitution.  The  highest  judicial  tribunals  in  the  land  have  al- 


176  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

ways  held  that  the  jury  trial  must  take  place  in  the  state  under  whose  juris 
diction  the  question  arose,  and  whose  laws  were  alleged  to  have  been  vio 
lated.  The  same  construction  has  always  been  given  to  the  law  for  surren 
dering  fugitives  from  justice.  It  provides  also  for  sending  back  the  fugitive, 
but  says  nothing  about  the  jury  trial,  or  where  it  shall  take  place.  Who 
ever  supposed  that  that  act  abolished  the  right  of  trial  by  jury?  Every  day's 
practice  and  observation  teach  us  otherwise.  The  jury  trial  is  always  had  in 
the  state  from  which  the  fugitive  fled.  So  it  is  with  a  fugitive  from  labor. 
When  he  returns,  or  is  surrendered  under  the  law,  he  is  entitled  to  a  trial  by 
jury  of  his  right  of  freedom,  and  always  has  it  when  he  demands  it.  There 
is  great  uniformity  in  the  mode  of  proceeding  in  the  courts  of  the  Southern 
States  in  this  respect.  When  the  supposed  slave  sets  up  his  claim,  to  the 
judge  or  other  officer,  that  he  is  free,  and  claims  his  freedom,  it  becomes  the 
duty  of  the  court  to  issue  its  summons  to  the  master  to  appear  in  court  with 
the  alleged  slave,  and  there  to  direct  an  issue  of  freedom  or  servitude  to  be 
made  and  tried  by  a  jury.  The  master  is  also  required  to  enter  into  bonds 
for  his  own  appearance  and  that  of  the  alleged  slave  at  the  trial  of  the  cause, 
and  that  he  will  not  remove  the  slave  from  the  county  or  jurisdiction  of  the 
court  in  the  mean  time.  The  court  is  also  required  to  appoint  counsel  to 
conduct  the  cause  for  the  slave,  while  the  master  employs  his  own  counsel. 
All  the  officers  of  the  court  are  required  by  law  to  render  all  facilities  to  the 
slave  for  the  prosecution  of  his  suit  free  of  charge,  such  as  issuing  and  serv 
ing  subpoenas  for  witnesses,  etc.  If  upon  the  trial  the  alleged  slave  is  held 
to  be  a  free  man,  the  master  is  required  to  pay  the  costs  on  both  sides.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  he  is  held  to  be  a  slave,  the  state  pays  the  costs.  This  is 
the  way  in  which  the  trial  by  jury  stood  under  the  old  law ;  and  the  new  one 
makes  no  change  in  this  respect.  If  the  act  of  last  session  be  repealed,  that 
will  neither  benefit  nor  injure  the  fugitive,  so  far  as  the  right  of  trial  by  jury 
is  concerned. 

For  these  two  reasons — the  habeas  corpus  and  the  trial  by  jury — the  Com 
mon  Council  have  pronounced  the  law  unconstitutional,  and  declared  that  it 
ought  not  to  be  respected  by  an  enlightened  community.  I  have  shown  that 
neither  of  the  objections  are  well  founded,  and  that,  if  they  had  taken  the 
trouble  to  read  the  law  before  they  nullified  it,  they  would  have  avoided  the 
mistake  into  which  they  have  fallen.  I  have  spoken  of  the  a*cts  of  the  city 
council  in  general  terms,  and  it  may  be  inferred  that  the  vote  was  unani 
mous.  I  take  pleasure  in  stating  that  I  learn  from  the  published  proceed 
ings  that  there  was  barely  a  quorum  present,  and  that  Aldermen  Page  and 
Williams  voted  in  the  negative. 

Having  disposed  of  the  two  reasons  assigned  by  the  Common  Council  for 
the  nullification  of  the  law,  I  shall  be  greatly  indebted  to  any  gentleman  who 
will  point  out  any  other  objection  to  the  new  law  which  does  not  apply  with 
equal  force  to  the  old  one.  My  object  in  drawing  the  parallel  between  the 
new  and  old  law  is  this :  The  law  of  '93  was  passed  by  the  patriots  and  sages 
who  framed  our  glorious  Constitution,  and  approved  by  the  Father  of  his 
Country.  I  have  always  been  taught  to  believe  that  they  were  men  well 
versed  in  the  science  of  government,  devotedly  attached  to  the  cause  of  free 
dom,  and  capable  of  construing  the  Constitution  in  the  spirit  in  which  they 
made  it.  That  act  has  been  enforced  and  acquiesced  in  for  more  than  half  a 
century,  without  a  murmur  or  word  of  complaint  from  any  quarter. 

I  repeat — will  any  gentleman  be  kind  enough  to  point  out  a  single  objec 
tion  to  the  new  law  which  might  not  be  urged  with  equal  propriety  to  the  act 
of  '93  ? 

[Here  a  gentleman  present  rose,  and  called  the  attention  of  Mr.  Douglas 
to  the  penalties  in  the  seventh  section  of  the  new  law,  and  desired  to  know  if 
there  were  any  such  obnoxious  provisions  in  the  old  one.] 


WHAT  BECAME   OF  THE   COMPROMISE.  177 

Mr.  Douglas  then  read  the  section  referred  to,  and  also  the  fourth  section 
of  the  act  of  "J3,  and  proceeded  to  draw  the  parallel  between  them.  Each 
makes  it  a  criminal  offense  to  resist  the  due  execution  of  the  law ;  to  know 
ingly  and  willfully  obstruct  or  hinder  the  claimant  in  the  arrest  of  the  fugi 
tive  ;  to  rescue  such  fugitive  from  the  claimant  when  arrested ;  to  harbor  or 
conceal  such  person  after  notice  that  he  or  she  was  a  fugitive  from  labor.  In 
this  respect  the  two  laws  were  substantially  the  same  in  every  important  par 
ticular.  Indeed  the  one  was  almost  a  literal  copy  of  the  other.  I  can  con 
ceive  of  no  act  which  would  be  an  offense  under  the  one  that  would  not  be 
punishable  under  the  other.  In  the  speeches  last  night,  great  importance 
was  given  to  the  clause  which  makes  it  an  offense  to  harbor  or  conceal  a  fu 
gitive.  You  were  told  that  you  could  not  clothe  the  naked,  nor  feed  the 
hungry,  nor  exercise  the  ordinary  charity  toward  suffering  humanity,  with 
out  incurring  the  penalty  of  the  law.  Is  this  a  true  construction  of  that  pro 
vision?  The  act  does  not  so  read.  The  law  says  that  you  shall  not  "har 
bor  or  conceal  such  fugitive,  so  as  to  prevent  the  discovery  and  arrest  of  such 
person  after  notice  or  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  such  person  was  a  fugitive 
from  service  or  labor  as  aforesaid."  This  does  not  deprive  you  of  the  privi 
lege  of  extending  charities  to  the  fugitive.  You  may  feed  him,  clothe  him, 
may  lodge  him,  provided  you  do  not  harbor  or  conceal  him,  so  as  to  prevent 
discovery  and  arrest,  after  notice  or  knowledge  that  he  is  a  fugitive.  The 
offense  consists  in  preventing  the  discovery  and  arrest  of  the  fugitive  after 
knowledge  of  the  fact,  and  not  in  extending  kindness  and  charities  to  him. 
This  is  the  construction  put  upon  a  similar  provision  in  the  old  law  by  the 
highest  judicial  tribunals  in  the  land.  The  only  difference  between  the  old 
law  and  the  new  one,  in  respect  to  obstructing  its  execution,  is  to  be  found  in 
the  amount  of  the  penalty,  and  not  in  the  principle  involved. 

But  it  is  further  objected  that  the  new  law  provides,  in  addition  to  the  pen 
alty,  for  a  civil  suit  for  damages,  to  be  recovered  by  an  action  of  debt  by  any 
court  having  jurisdiction  of  the  cause.  This  is  true  ;  but  it  is  also  true  that 
a  similar  provision  is  to  be  foitnd  in  the  old  law.  The  concluding  clause  in 
the  last  section  of  the  act  of  '93  is  as  follows  : 

"  Which  penalty  may  be  recovered  by  and  for  the  benefit  of  such  claimant, 
by  action  of  debt,  in  any  proper  court  to  try  the  same ;  saving,  moreover,  to 
the  person  claiming  such  labor  or  service,  his  right  of  action  for  or  on  account  of 
the  said  injuries,  or  either  of 'them, ." 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  upon  this  point  there  is  no  difference  between  the 
new  and  the  old  law. 

Is  there  any  other  provision  of  this  law  upon  which  explanation  is  desired  ? 

[A  gentleman  present  referred  to  the  ]»0th  section,  and  desired  an  expla 
nation  of  the  object  and  effect  of  the  record  from  another  state  therein  pro 
vided  for.] 

I  am  glad,  said  Mr.  D. ,  that  my  attention  has  been  called  to  that  provi 
sion  ;  for  I  heard  a  construction  given  to  it  in  the  speeches  last  night  entirely 
different  to  the  plain  reading  and  object  of  that  section.  It  is  said  that  this 
provision  authorizes  the  claimant  to  go  before  a  court  of  record  of  the  county 
and  state  where  he  lives,  and  there  establish  by  ex-parte  testimony,  in  the  ab 
sence  of  the  fugitive,  the  facts  of  servitude,  of  ownership,  and  escape ;  and 
when  a  record  of  these  facts  shall  have  been  made,  containing  a  minute  de 
scription  of  the  slave,  it  shall  be  conclusive  evidence  against  a  person  corre 
sponding  to  that  description,  arrested  in  another  state,  and  shall  consign  the 
person  so  arrested  to  perpetual  servitude.  The  law  contemplates  no  such 
thing,  and  authorizes  no  such  result.  I  have  the  charity  to  believe  that  those 
who  have  put  this  construction  upon  it  have  not  carefully  examined  it.  The 
record  from  another  state  predicated  upon  "satisfactory  proof  to  such  court 

H2 


178  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

or  judge"  before  whom  the  testimony  may  be  adduced,  and  the  record  made, 
is  to  be  conclusive  of  two  facts  only : 

1st.  That  the  person  named  in  the  record  does  owe  service  to  the  person 
in  whose  behalf  the  record  is  made. 

2d.  That  such  person  has  escaped  from  service. 

The  language  of  the  law  is,  that  "the  transcript  of  the  record  authenti 
cated,"  etc.,  "shall  be  held  and  taken  to  be  full  and  conclusive  evidence  of 
the  fact  of  escape,  and  that  the  service  or  labor  of  such  person  escaping  is  due 
to  the  party  in  such  record  mentioned."  The  record  is  conclusive  of  these 
two  facts  so  far  as  to  authorize  the  fugitive  to  be  sent  back  for  trial  under 
the  laws  of  the  state  whence  he  fled,  but  it  is  no  evidence  that  the  person  ar 
rested  here  is  the  fugitive  named  in  the  record.  The  question  of  identity  is  to 
be  proven  here  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  commissioner  or  judge,  before  whom 
the  trial  is  had,  by  "by  other  and  farther  evidence."  This  is  the  great  point  in 
the  case.  The  whole  question  turns  upon  it.  The  man  arrested  may  corre 
spond  to  the  description  set  forth  in  the  record,  and  yet  not  be  the  same  indi 
vidual.  We  often  meet  persons  resembling  each  other  to  such  an  extent 
that  the  one  is  frequently  mistaken  for  the  other.  The  identity  of  the  person 
becomes  a  matter  of  proof — a  fact  to  be  established  by  the  testimony  of  com 
petent  and  disinterested  witnesses,  and  to  be  decided  by  the  tribunal  before 
whom  the  trial  is  had,  conscientiously  and  impartially,  according  to  the  evi 
dence  in  the  case.  The  description  in  the  record,  unsupported  by  other  tes 
timony,  is  not  evidence  of  the  identity.  It  is  not  inserted  for  the  especial 
benefit  of  the -claimant,  much  less  to  the  prejudice  of  the  alleged  slave.  It 
is  required  as  a  test  of  truth,  a  safeguard  against  fraud,  which  will  often  op 
erate  favorably  to  the  fugitive,  but  never  to  his  injury.  If  the  description  be 
accurate  and  true,  no  injustice  can  possibly  result  from  it ;  but  if  it  be  erro 
neous  or  false,  the  claimant  is  concluded  by  it;  and  the  fugitive,  availing 
himself  of  the  error,  defeats  the  claim,  in  the  same  manner  as  a  discrepancy 
between  the  allegations  and  the  proof,  in  any  other  case,  results  to  the  ad 
vantage  of  the  defendant.  I  repeat  that,  when  an  arrest  is  made  under  a 
record  from  another  state,  the  identity  of  the  person  must  be  established  by 
competent  testimony.  The  trial,  in  this  instance,  would  be  precisely  the  same 
as  in  the  case  of  a  white  man  arrested  on  the  charge  of  being  a  fugitive  from 
justice.  The  writ  of  the  governor,  predicated  upon  an  indictment,  or  even 
an  affidavit  from  another  state,  containing  the  charge  of  crime,  would'be  con 
clusive  evidence  of  the  right  to  take  the  fugitive  back ;  but  the  identity  of 
the  person  in  that  case,  as  well  as  a  fugitive  from  labor,  must  be  proven  in 
the  state  where  the  arrest  is  made  by  competent  witnesses  before  the  tribunal 
provided  by  law  for  that  purpose.  In  this  respect,  therefore,  the  negro  is 
placed  upon  a  perfect  equality  with  the  white  man  who  is  so  unfortunate  as 
to  be  charged  with  an  offense  in  another  state,  whether  the  charge  be  true 
or  false.  In  some  respects,  the  law  guards  the  rights  of  the  negro  charged 
with  being  a  fugitive  from  labor  more  rigidly  than  it  does  those  of  a  white 
man  who  is  alleged  to  be  a  fugitive  from  justice.  The  record  from  another 
state  must  be  predicated  upon  "proof  satisfactory  to  the  court  or  judge"  before 
whom  it  is  made,  and  must  set  forth  the  "matter  proved,"  before  it  can  be 
evidence  against  a  fugitive  from  labor,  or  for  any  purpose ;  whereas  an  inno 
cent  white  man  who  is  so  unfortunate  as  to  be  falsely  charged  with  a  crime 
in  another  state  by  the  simple  affidavit  of  an  unknown  person,  without  indict 
ment  or  proof  to  the  satisfaction  of  any  court,  is  liable  to  be  transported  to 
the  most  distant  portions  of  this  Union  for  trial. 

Here  we  find  the  act  of  last  session  is  a  great  improvement  upon  the  law 
of  '93  in  reference  to  fugitives,  white  or  black,  whether  they  fled  from  justice 
or  labor.  But  it  is  objected  that  the  testimony  before  the  court  making  the 
record  is  ex  parte,  and  therefore  in  violation  of  the  principles  of  justice  and 


WHAT   BECAME    OF  THE   COMPEOMISE.  179 

the  Constitution,  because  it  deprives  the  accused  of  the  privilege  of  meeting 
the  witnesses  face  to  face,  and  of  cross-examination.  Gentlemen  forget  that 
all  proceedings  for  the  arrest  of  fugitives  are  necessarily  ex  parte.  from  the 
nature  of  the  case.  They  have  fled  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court,  and 
the  object  of  the  proceeding  is  that  they  may  be  brought  back,  confront  the 
witnesses,  and  receive  a  fair  trial  according  to  the  Constitution  and  laws.  If 
they  would  stay  at  home  in  order  to  attend  the  trial  and  cross-examine  the 
witnesses,  the  record  would  be  unnecessary,  and  the  Fugitive  Law  inopera 
tive.  It  is  no  answer  to  this  proposition  to  say  that  slavery  is  no  crime,  and 
therefore  the  parallel  does  not  hold  good.  I  am  not  speaking  of  the  guilt 
or  innocence  of  slavery ;  I  am  discussing  our  obligations  under  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States.  That  sacred  instrument  says  that  a  fugitive  from 
labor  "  shall  be  delivered  iip  on  the  claim  of  the  owner."  The  same  clause  of 
the  same  instrument  provides  that  fugitives  from  justice  shall  be  delivered 
up.  We  are  bound  by  our  oaths  to  our  God  to  see  that  claim,  as  well  as 
every  other  provision  of  the  Constitution,  earned  into  effect.  The  moral, 
religious,  and  constitutional  obligations  resting  upon  us,  here  and  hereafter, 
are  the  same  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  As  citizens,  owing  allegiance 
to  the  government  and  duties  to  society,  we  have  no  right  to  interpose  our 
individual  opinions  and  scruples  as  excuses  for  violating  the  supreme  law  of 
the  land  as  our  fathers  made  it,  and  as  we  are  sworn  to  support  it.  The  ob 
ligation  is  just  as  sacred,  under  the  Constitution,  to  surrender  fugitives  from 
labor  as  fugitives  from  justice ;  and  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  ac 
cording  to  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  are  as  imperatively  commanded 
to  provide  the  necessary  legislation  for  the  one  as  for  the  other.  The  act  of 
1793,  to  which  I  have  had  occasion  to  refer  so  frequently,  and  which  has  been 
read  to  you,  provided  for  these  two  cases  in  the  same  bill.  The  first  half  of 
that  act,  relating  to  fugitives  from  justice,  applies,  from  the  nature  and  ne 
cessity  of  the  case,  principally  to  white  men ;  and  the  other  half,  for  the  same 
reasons,  applies  exclusively  to  the  negro  race.  I  have  shown  you,  by  reading 
and  comparing  the  two  laws  in  your  presence,  that  there  is  no  constitutional 
guaranty,  or  common-law  right,  or  legal  or  judicial  privilege,  for  the  protec 
tion  of  the  white  man  against  oppression  and  injustice,  under  the  law  framed 
in  1793,  and  now  in  force,  for  the  surrender  of  fugitives  from  justice,  that 
does  not  apply  in  all  its  force  in  behalf  of  the  negro,  when  arrested  as  a  fugi 
tive  from  labor,  under  the  act  of  the  last  session.  What  more  can  the  friends 
of  the  negro  ask  than,  in  all  his  civil  and  legal  rights  under  the  Constitution, 
he  shall  be  placed  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  white  man  ?  But  it  is  said 
that  the  law  is  susceptible  of  being  abused  by  perjury  and  false  testimony. 
To  what  human  enactment  does  not  the  same  objection  lie?  You,  or  I,  or 
any  other  man,  who  was  never  in  California  in  his  life,  are  liable,  under  the 
Constitution,  to  be  sent  there  in  chains  for  trial  as  a  fugitive  from  justice  by 
means  of  perjury  and  fraud.  But  does  this  fact  prove  that  the  Constitution, 
and  the  laws  for  carrying  it  into  effect,  are  wrong,  and  should  be  resisted,  as 
we  were  told  last  night,  even  unto  the  dungeon,  the  gibbet,  and  the  grave  ? 
It  only  demonstrates  to  us  the  necessity  of  providing  all  the  safeguards  that 
the  wit  of  man  can  devise  for  the  protection  of  the  innocent  and  the  free,  at  the 
same  time  that  we  religiously  enforce,  according  to  its  letter  and  spirit,  every 
provision  of  the  Constitution.  I  will  not  say  that  the  act  recently  passed  for 
the  surrender  of  fugitives  from  labor  accomplishes  all  this,  but  I  will  thank 
any  gentleman  to  point  out  any  one  barrier  against  abuse  in  the  old  law,  or  in 
the  law  for  the  surrender  of  white  men,  as  fugitives  from  justice,  that  is  not 
secured  to  the  negro  under  the  new  law.  I  pause  in  order  to  give  any  gen 
tleman  an  opportunity  to  point  out  the  provision.  I  invite  inquiry  and  ex 
amination.  My  object  is  to  arrive  at  the  truth — to  repel  error  and  dissipate 
prejudice — and  to  avoid  violence  and  bloodshed.  Will  any  gentleman  point 


180  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

out  the  provision  in  the  old  law  for  securing  and  vindicating  the  rights  of  the 
free  man  that  is  not  secured  to  him  in  the  act  of  last  session  ? 

[A  gentleman  present  rose  and  called  the  attention  of  Mr.  Douglas  to  the 
provision  for  paying  out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  the  expenses 
of  carrying  the  fugitive  back  in  case  of  anticipated  resistance.] 

Ah !  said  Mr.  Douglas.,  that  is  a  question  of  dollars  and  cents,  involving 
no  other  principle  than  the  costs  of  the  proceeding.  I  was  discussing  the 
question  of  human  rights — the  mode  of  protecting  the  rights  of  freemen  from 
invasion,  and  the  obligation  to  surrender  fugitives  under  the  Constitution. 
Is  it  possible  that  this  momentous  question,  which,  only  forty-eight  hours  ago, 
was  deemed  of  sufficient  importance  to  authorize  the  city  council  to  nullify 
an  act  of  Congress,  and  raise  the  standard  of  rebellion  against  the  federal 
government,  has  dwindled  down  into  a  mere  petty  dispute  who  shall  pay  the 
costs  of  suit  ?  This  is  too  grave  a  question  for  me  to  discuss  on  this  occasion. 
I  confess  my  utter  inability  to  do  it  justice.  Yesterday  the  Constitution  of  the 
ocean-bound  republic  had  been  overthrown ;  the  privileges  of  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus  had  been  suspended  ;  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  had  been  abol 
ished  ;  pains  and  penalties  had  been  imposed  upon  every  humane  citizen  Avho 
should  feed  the  hungry  and  cover  the  naked ;  the  law  of  God  had  been  out 
raged  by  an  infamous  act  of  a  traitorous  Congress ;  and  the  standard  of  re 
bellion,  raised  by  our  city  fathers,  was  floating  in  the  breeze,  calling  on  all 
good  citizens  to  rally  under  its  sacred  folds,  and  resist  with  fire  and  sword — 
the  payment  of  the  costs  of  suit  upon  the  arrest  of  a  fugitive  from  labor ! 

I  will  pass  over  this  point,  and  inquire  whether  there  is  any  other  provision 
of  this  law  upon  which  an  explanation  is  desired  ?  I  hope  no  one  will  be 
backward  in  propounding  inquiries,  for  I  have  but  a  few  days  to  remain  with 
you,  and  desire  to  make  a  clean  business  of  this  matter  on  the  present  occa 
sion.  Is  there  any  other  objection  ? 

[A  gentleman  rose,  and  desired  to  know  why  the  bill  provides  for  paying 
ten  dollars  to  the  commissioner  for  his  fee  in  case  he  decided  in  favor  of  the 
claimant,  and  only  five  dollars  if  he  decided  against  him.] 

I  presume,  said  Mr.  Douglas,  that  the  reason  was  that  he  would  have 
more  labor  to  perform.  If,  after  hearing  the  testimony,  the  commissioner 
decided  in  favor  of  the  claimant,  the  law  made  it  his  duty  to  prepare  and 
authenticate  the  necessary  papers  to  authorize  him  to  carry  the  fugitive 
home  ;  but  if  he  decided  against  him,  he  had  no  such  labor  to  perform.  The 
law  seems  to  be  based  upon  the  principle  that  the  commissioner  should  be 
paid  according  to  the  service  he  should  render — five  dollars  for  presiding  at 
the  trial,  and  five  dollars  for  making  out  the  papers  in  case  the  testimony 
should  require  him  to  return  the  fugitive.  This  provision  appears  to  be  ex 
citing  considerable  attention  in  the  country,  and  I  have  been  exceedingly 
gratified  at  the  proceedings  of  a  mass  meeting  held  in  a  county  not  far  dis 
tant,  in  which  it  was  resolved  unanimously  that  they  could  not  be  bribed  for 
the  sum  of  five  dollars  to  consign  a  freeman  to  perpetual  bondage !  This 
shows  an  exalted  state  of  moral  feeling  highly  creditable  to  those  who  par 
ticipated  in  the  meeting.  I  doubt  not  they  will  make  their  influence  felt 
throughout  the  state,  and  will  instruct  their  members  of  the  Legislature  to 
reform  our  criminal  code  in  this  respect.  Under  our  laws,  as  they  have 
stood  for  many  years,  and  probably  from  the  organization  of  our  state  gov 
ernment,  in  all  criminal  cases,  on  the  preliminary  examination  before  the 
magistrates,  and  in  all  the  higher  courts,  if  the  prisoner  be  convicted,  the 
witnesses,  jurors,  and  officers  are  entitled  to  their  fees  and  bills  of  costs ;  but 
if  he  be  acquitted,  none  of  them  receive  a  cent.  In  order  to  diffuse  the  same 
high  moral  sense  throughout  the  whole  community,  would  it  not  be  well,  at 
their  next  meeting,  to  pass  another  resolution,  that  they  would  not  be  bribed 
by  the  fees  and  costs  of  suit  in  any  case,  either  as  witnesses,  jurors,  magis- 


WHAT   BECAME    OF   THE    COMPKOMISE.  181 

trates,  or  in  any  other  capacity,  to  consign  an  innocent  man  to  a  dismal  cell 
iij  the  penitentiary,  or  expose  him  to  an  ignominious  death  upon  the  gallows? 
Such  a  resolution  might  do  a  great  deal  of  good  in  elevating  the  character 
of  our  people  abroad,  at  the  same  time  that  it  might  inspire  increased  con 
fidence  in  the  liberality  and  conscientiousness  of  those  who  adopted  it ! 

Is  there  any  other  objection  to  this  law  ? 

[A  gentleman  rose,  and  called  the  attention  of  Mr.  Douglas  to  the  provi 
sion  vesting  the  appointment  of  the  commissioners  under  it  in  the  courts  of 
law,  instead  of  the  President  and  Senate,  and  asked  if  that  was  not  a  viola 
tion  of  that  provision  of  the  Constitution  which  says  that  judges  of  the  Su 
preme  Court,  and  of  the  inferior  courts,  should  be  appointed  by  the  Presi 
dent  and  Senate.] 

I  thank  the  gentleman,  said  Mr.  D.,  for  calling  my  attention  to  this  point. 
It  was  made  in  the  speech  of  a  distinguished  lawyer  last  night,  and  evidently 
produced  great  effect  upon  the  minds  of  the  audience.  The  gentleman's 
high  professional  standing,  taken  in  connection  with  his  laborious  prepara 
tion  for  the  occasion,  as  was  apparent  to  all,  from  his  lengthy  written  brief 
before  him  while  speaking,  inspired  implicit  confidence  in  the  correctness  of 
his  position.  My  answer  to  the  objection  will  be  found  in  the  Constitution 
itself,  which  I  will  read,  so  far  as  it  bears  upon  this  question : 

"The  President  shall  nominate,  and  by  and  with  the  consent  of  the  Senate 
shall  appoint  embassadors,  other  public  ministers,  and  consuls,  judges  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  and  all  other  officers  of  the  United  States,  whose  appoint 
ments  are  not  herein  otherwise  provided  for,  and  which  shall  be  established 
by  law." 

Now  it  will  be  seen  that  the  words  "  inferior  courts"  are  not  mentioned  in 
the  Constitution.  The  gentleman,  in  his  zeal  against  the  law,  and  his  phrensy 
to  resist  it,  interpolated  these  words,  and  then  made  a  plausible  argument 
upon  them.  I  trust  this  was  all  unintentional,  or  was  done  with  the  view 
of  fulfilling  the  "higher  law."  But  there  is  another  sentence  in  this  same 
clause  of  the  Constitution  which  I  have  not  yet  read.  It  is  as  follows : 

"But  the  Congress  may  by  law  vest  the  appointment  of  such  inferior  offi 
cers  as  they  think  proper  in  the  President  alone,  in  the  courts  of  laiv,  or  in 
the  heads  of  departments." 

The  practice  under  this  clause  has  usually  been  to  confer  the  power  of  ap 
pointing  those  inferior  officers,  whose  duties  were  executive  or  ministerial, 
upon  the  President  alone,  or  upon  the  head  of  the  appropriate  department ; 
and  in  like  manner  to  give  to  the  courts  of  law  the  privilege  of  appointing 
their  subordinates,  whose  duties  were  in  their  nature  judicial.  What  is 
meant  by  "inferior  courts,"  whose  appointment  may  be  vested  in  the  "courts 
of  law,"  will  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  8th  section  of  the  Constitution,  where 
the  powers  of  Congress  are  enumerated,  and  among  them  is  the  following : 

"To  constitute  tribunals  inferior  to  the  Supreme  Court." 

Is  the  tribunal  which  is  to  carry  the  Fugitive  Law  into  effect  inferior  to 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  ?  If  it  is,  the  Constitution  expressly 
provides  for  vesting  the  appointment  in  the  courts  of  law.  I  will  remark, 
however,  that  these  commissioners  are  not  appointed  under  the  new  law,  but 
in  obedience  to  an  act  of  Congress  which  has  stood  on  the  statute-books  for 
many  years.  If  those  who  denounce  and  misrepresent  the  act  of  last  session 
had  condescended  to  read  it  before  they  undertook  to  enlighten  the  people 
upon  it,  they  would  have  saved  themselves  the  mortification  of  exposure,  as 
I  will  show  by  reading  the  first  section. 

Here  Mr.  Douglas  read  the  law,  and  proceeded  to  remark :  Thus  it  will  be 
seen  that  these  commissioners  have  been  in  office  for  years,  with  their  duties 
prescribed  by  law,  nearly  all  of  which  were  of  a  judicial  character,  and  that 
the  new  law  only  imposes  additional  duties,  and  authorizes  the  increase  of 


182  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

the  number.  Why  has  not  this  grave  constitutional  objection  been  discovered 
before,  and  the  people  informed  how  their  rights  have  been  outraged  in  vio 
lation  of  the  supreme  law  of  the  land  ?  Truly,  the  passage  of  the  Fugitive 
Bill  has  thrown  a  flood  of  light  upon  constitutional  principles ! 

Is  there  any  other  objection  to  the  new  law  which  does  not  apply  to  the 
act  of  '93  ? 

[A  gentleman  rose,  and  said  that  he  would  like  to  ask  another  question, 
which  was  this :  if  the  new  law  was  so  similar  to  the  old  one,  what  was  the 
necessity  of  passing  any  at  all,  since  the  old  one  was  still  in  force  ?] 

Mr.  Douglas,  in  reply,  said,  that  is  the  very  question  I  was  anxious  some 
one  should  propound,  because  I  was  desirous  of  an  opportunity  of  answering 
it.  The  old  law  answered  all  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  enacted  tolera 
bly  well  until  the  decision  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  the 
case  of  Priggs  v.  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  eight  or  nine  years  ago.  That 
decision  rendered  the  law  comparatively  inoperative,  for  the  reason  that 
there  were  scarcely  any  officers  left  to  execute  it.  It  will  be  recollected  that 
the  act  of '93  imposed  the  duty  of  carrying  it  into  effect  upon  the  magistrates 
and  other  officers  under  the  state  governments.  These  officers  performed 
their  duties  under  that  law  with  fidelity  for  about  fifty  years,  until  the  Su 
preme  Court,  in  the  case  alluded  to,  decided  that  they  were  under  no  legal 
obligation  to  do  so,  and  that  Congress  had  no  constitutional  power  to  impose 
the  duty  upon  them.  From  that  time  many  of  the  officers  refused  to  act, 
and  soon  afterward  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts,  and  many  other  states, 
passed  laws  making  it  criminal  for  their  officers  to  perform  these  duties. 
Hence  the  old  law,  although  efficient  in  its  provisions,  and  similar  in  most 
respects,  and  especially  in  those  objected  to  almost  identical  with  the  new 
law,  became  comparatively  a  dead  letter  for  want  of  officers  to  carry  it  into 
effect.  The  judges  of  the  United  States  courts  were  the  only  officers  left  who 
were  authorized  to  execute  it.  In  this  state,  for  instance,  Judge  Drummond, 
whose  residence  was  in  the  extreme  northwest  corner  of  the  state,  within  six 
miles  of  Wisconsin  and  three  of  Iowa,  and  in  the  direction  where  fugitives 
were  least  likely  to  go,  was  the  only  person  authorized  to  try  the  case. 

If  a  fugitive  was  arrested  at  Shawneetown  or  Alton,  three  or  four  hundred 
miles  from  the  residence  of  the  judge,  the  master  would  attempt  to  take  him 
across  the  river  to  his  home  in  Kentucky  or  Missouri,  without  first  establish 
ing  his  right  to  do  so.  This  was  calculated  to  excite  uneasiness  and  doubts 
in  the  minds  of  our  citizens  as  to  the  propriety  of  permitting  the  negro  to  be 
carried  out  of  the  state,  without  the  fact  of  his  owing  service,  and  having  es 
caped,  being  first  proved,  lest  it  might  turn  out  that  the  negro  was  a  free  man 
and  the  claimant  a  kidnapper.  And  yet,  according  to  the  express  terms  of  the 
old  law,  the  master  was  authorized  to  seize  his  slave  wherever  he  found  him, 
and  to  carry  him  back  without  process,  or  trial,  or  proof  of  any  kind  whatso 
ever.  Hence  it  was  necessary  to  pass  the  act  of  last  session,  in  order  to  carry 
into  effect,  in  a  peaceable  and  orderly  manner,  the  provisions  of  the  law  and 
the  Constitution  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  protect  the  free  colored  man  from 
being  kidnapped  and  sold  into  slavery  by  unprincipled  men  on  the  other 
hand.  The  purpose  of  the  new  law  is  to  accomplish  these  two  objects — to 
appoint  officers  to  carry  the  law  into  effect,  in  the  place  of  the  magistrates 
relieved  from  that  duty  by  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  to  guard 
against  harassing  and  kidnapping  the  free  blacks,  by  preventing  the  claimant 
from  carrying  the  negro  out  of  the  state  until  he  establishes  his  legal  right  to 
do  so^  The  new  law,  therefore,  is  a  great  improvement  in  this  respect  upon 
the  old  one,  and  is  more  favorable  to  justice  and  freedom,  and  better  guarded 
against  abuse. 

[A  person  present  asked  leave  to  propound  another  question  to  Mr.  Doug 
las,  which  was  this  :  "If  the  new  law  is  more  favorable  to  freedom  than  the 


"    WHAT   BECAME    OP  THE   COMPKOMISE.  183 

old  one,  why  did  the  Southern  slaveholders  vote  for  it,  and  desire  its  pas 
sage?"] 

Mr.  Douglas  said  he  would  answer  that  question  with  a  great  deal  of  pleas 
ure.  The  Southern  members  voted  for  it  for  the  reason  that  it  was  a  better  law 
than  the  old  one — better  for  them,  better  for  us,  and  better  for  the  free  blacks. 
It  places  the  execution  of  the  law  in  the  hands  of  responsible  officers  of  the 
government,  instead  of  leaving  every  man  to  take  the  law  into  his  own  hands 
and  to  execute  it  for  himself.  It  affords  personal  security  to  the  claimant 
while  arresting  his  servant  and  taking  him  back,  by  providing  him  with  the 
opportunity  of  establishing  his  legal  rights,  by  competent  testimony  before  a 
tribunal  duly  authorized  to  try  the  case,  and  thus  allay  all  apprehensions  and 
suspicions,  on  the  part  of  our  citizens,  that  he  is  a  villain,  attempting  to  steal 
a  free  man  for  the  purpose  of  selling  him  into  slavery.  The  slaveholder  has 
as  strong  a  desire  to  protect  the  rights  of  the  free  black  man  as  we  have,  and 
much  more  interest  to  do  so ;  for  he  well  knows  that  if  outrages  should  be 
tolerated  under  the  law,  and  free  men  are  seized  and  carried  into  slavery, 
from  that  moment  the  indignant  outcry  against  it  would  be  so  strong  here 
and  every  where,  that  even  a  fugitive  from  labor  could  not  be  returned,  lest 
he  also  might  happen  to  be  free.  The  interest  of  the  slaveholder,  therefore, 
requires  a  law  which  shall  protect  the  rights  of  all  free  men,  black  or  white, 
from  any  invasion  or  violation  whatever.  I  ask  the  question,  therefore, 
whether  this  law  is  not  better  than  the  old  one — better  for  the  North  and  the 
South — better  for  the  peace  and  quiet  of  the  whole  country  ?  Let  it  be  re 
membered  that  this  law  is  but  an  amendment  to  the  act  of  '93,  and  that  the 
old  law  still  remains  in  force,  except  so  far  as  it  is  modified  by  this.  Every 
man  who  voted  against  this  modification  thereby  voted  to  leave  the  old  law 
in  force ;  for  I  am  not  aware  that  any  member  of  either  house  of  Congress 
ever  had  the  hardihood  to  propose  to  repeal  the  law,  and  make  no  provisions 
to  carry  the  Constitution  into  effect.  But  the  cry  of  repeal,  as  to  the  new 
law,  has  already  gone  forth.  Well,  suppose  it  succeeds ;  what  will  those  have 
gained  who  joined  in  the  shout  ?  Have  I  not  shown  that  all  the  material  ob 
jections  they  urge  against  the  new  law  apply  with  equal  force  to  the  old  one  ? 
What  do  they  gain,  therefore,  unless  they  propose  to  repeal  the  old  law  also, 
and  make  no  provisions  for  performing  our  obligations,  under  the  Constitu 
tion?  This  must  be  the  object  of  all  men  who  take  that  position.  To  this 
it  must  come  in  the  end.  The  real  objection  is  not  to  the  new  law,  nor  to 
the  old  one,  but  to  the  Constitution  itself.  Those  of  you  who  hold  these 
opinions  do  not  mean  that  the  fugitive  from  labor  shall  be  taken  back.  That 
is  the  real  point  of  your  objection.  You  would  not  care  a  farthing  about  the 
new  law  or  the  old  law,  or  any  other  law,  or  what  provisions  it  contained,  if 
there  was  a  hole  in  it  big  enough  for  the  fugitive  to  slip  through  and  escape. 
Habeas  corpuses — trials  by  jury — records  from  other  states — pains  and  pen 
alties — the  whole  catalogue  of  objections,  would  be  all  moonshine,  if  the  negro 
was  not  required  to  go  back  to  his  master.  Tell  me  frankly,  is  not  this  the 
true  character  of  your  objection  ? 

[Here  several  gentlemen  gave  an  affirmative  answer.] 

Mr.  Douglas  said  he  would  answer  that  objection  by  reading  a  portion  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  He  then  read  as  follows : 

' '  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  state,  under  the  laws  thereof, 
escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein, 
be  discharged  from  such  service  or  labor,  BUT  SHALL  BE  DELIVERED  UP  on 
the  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due." 

This,  said  Mr.  D.,  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  speaking  to  every  citizen 
of  the  republic.  The  command  is  imperative.  There  is  no  avoiding — no 
escaping  the  obligation,  so  long  as  we  live  under,  and  claim  the  protection 
of,  the  Constitution.  We  must  yield  implicit  obedience,  or  we  must  take  the 


184  LIFE    OP   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

necessary  steps  to  release  ourselves  from  the  obligation  to  obey.  There  is  no 
other  alternative.  We  must  stand  by  the  Constitution  of  the  Union,  with  all 
its  compromises,  or  we  must  abolish  it,  and  resolve  each  state  back  into  its 
original  elements.  It  is,  therefore,  a  question  of  union  or  disunion.  We  can 
not  expect  our  brethren  of  other  states  to  remain  faithful  to  the  compact,  and 
permit  us  to  be  faithless.  Are  we  prepared,  therefore,  to  execute  faithfully 
and  honestly  the  compact  our  fathers  have  made  for  us  ? 

[Here  a  gentleman  rose,  and  inquired  of  Mr.  Douglas  whether  the  clause  in 
the  Constitution  providing  for  the  surrender  of  fugitive  slaves  was  not  in  vi 
olation  of  the  law  of  God  ?] 

Mr.  Douglas  in  reply — The  divine  law  is  appealed  to  as  authority  for  dis 
regarding  our  most  sacred  duties  to  society.  The  city  council  have  appealed 
to  it  as  their  excuse  for  nullifying  an  act  of  Congress ;  and  a  committee  em 
bodied  the  same  principle  in  their  resolutions  to  the  meeting  in  this  hall  last 
night,  as  applicable  both  to  the  Constitution  and  laws.  The  general  proposi 
tion  that  there  is  a  law  paramount  to  all  human  enactments — the  law  of  the 
Supreme  Ruler  of  the  Universe — I  trust  that  no  civilized  and  Christian  people 
is  prepared  to  question,  much  less  deny.  We  should  all  recognize,  respect, 
and  revere  the  divine  law.  But  we  should  bear  in  mind  that  the  law  of  God, 
as  revealed  to  us,  is  intended  to  operate  on  our  consciences,  and  insure  the. 
performance  of  our  duties  as  individuals  and  Christians.  The  divine  law 
does  not  prescribe  the  form  of  government  under  which  we  shall  live,  and  the 
character  of  our  political  and  civil  institutions.  Revelation  has  not  furnished 
us  with  a  Constitution — a  code  of  international  law — and  a  system  of  civil  and 
municipal  jurisprudence.  It  has  not  determined  the  right  of  persons  and 
property,  much  less  the  peculiar  privileges  which  shall  be  awarded  to  each 
class  of  persons  under  any  particular  form  of  government.  God  has  created 
man  in  his  own  image,  and  endowed  him  with  the  right  of  self-government, 
so  soon  as  he  shall  evince  the  requisite  intelligence,  virtue,  and  capacity  to 
assert  and  enjoy  the  privilege.  The  history  of  the  world  furnishes  few  ex 
amples  where  any  considerable  portion  of  the  human  race  have  shown  them 
selves  sufficiently  enlightened  and  civilized  to  exercise  the  rights  and  enjoy 
the  blessings  of  freedom.  In  Asia  and  Africa  we  find  nothing  but  ignorance, 
superstition,  and  despotism.  Large  portions  of  Europe  and  America  can 
scarcely  lay  claim  to  civilization  and  Christianity ;  and  a  still  smaller  portion 
have  demonstrated  their  capacity  for  self-government.  Is  all  this  contrary  to 
the  laws  of  God  ?  And  if  so,  who  is  responsible  ?  The  civilized  world  have 
always  held  that  when  any  race  of  men  have  shown  themselves  so  degraded, 
by  ignorance,  superstition,  cruelty,  and  barbarism,  as  to  be  utterly  incapable 
of  governing  themselves,  they  must,  in  the  nature  of  things,  be  governed  by 
others,  by  such  laws  as  are  deemed  applicable  to  their  condition.  It  is  upon 
this  principle  alone  that  England  justifies  the  form  of  government  she  has  es 
tablished  in  the  Indies,  and  for  some  of  her  other  colonies — that  Russia  justi 
fies  herself  in  holding  her  serfs  as  slaves,  and  selling  them  as  a  part  of  the 
land  on  which  they  live — that  our  Pilgrim  Fathers  justified  themselves  in  re 
ducing  the  negro  and  Indian  to  servitude,  and  selling  them  as  property — that 
we,  in  Illinois  and  most  of  the  free  states,  justify  ourselves  in  denying  the 
negro  and  the  Indian  the  privilege  of  voting,  and  all  other  political  rights — 
and  that  many  of  the  states  of  the  Union  justify  themselves  in  depriving  the 
white  man  of  the  right  of  the  elective  franchise,  unless  he  is  fortunate  enough 
to  own  a  certain  amount  of  property. 

These  things  certainly  violate  the  principle  of  absolute  equality  among 
men,  when  considered  as  component  parts  of  a  political  society  or  govern 
ment,  and  so  do  many  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  as 
well  as  the  several  states  of  the  Union.  In  fact,  no  government  ever  existed 
on  earth  in  which  there  was  a  perfect  equality  in  all  things  among  those 


WHAT  BECAME    OF   THE    COMPEOMISE.  )  85 

composing  it  and  governed  by  it.  Neither  sacred  nor  profane  history  fur 
nishes  an  example.  If  inequality  in  the  form  and  principles  of  government 
is  therefore  to  be  deemed  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  God,  and  punishable  as 
such,  who  is  to  escape?  Under  this  principle  all  Christendom  is  doomed, 
and  no  pagan  can  hope  for  mercy !  Many  of  these  things  are,  in  my  opinion, 
unwise  and  unjust,  and,  of  course,  subversive  of  Republican  principles ;  but  I 
am  not  prepared  to  say  that  they  are  either  sanctioned  or  condemned  by  the 
divine  law.  Who  can  assert  that  God  has  prescribed  the  form  and  principles 
of  government,  and  the  character  of  the  political,  municipal,  and  domestic 
institutions  of  men  on  earth?  This  doctrine  would  annihilate  the  funda 
mental  principle  upon  which  our  political  system  rests.  Our  forefathers  held 
that  the  people  had  an  inherent  right  to  establish  such  Constitution  and  laws 
for  the  government  of  themselves  and  their  posterity  as  they  should  deem  best 
calculated  to  insure  the  protection  of  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happi 
ness,  and  that  the  same  might  be  altered  and  changed  as  experience  should 
satisfy  them  to  be  necessary  and  proper.  Upon  this  principle  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States  was  formed,  and  our  glorious  Union  established. 
All  acts  of  Congress  passed  in  pursuance  of  the  Constitution  are  declared  to 
be  the  supreme  laws  of  the  land,  and  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
is  charged  with  expounding  the  same.  All  officers  and  magistrates  under 
the  federal  and  state  governments — executive,  legislative,  judicial,  and  min 
isterial — are  required  to  take  an  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  before  they 
can  enter  upon  the  performance  of  their  respective  duties.  Any  citizen, 
therefore,  who  in  his  conscience  believes  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  is  in  violation  of  a  "higher  law,"  has  no  right,  as  an  honest  man,  to 
take  office  under  it,  or  exercise  any  other  function  of  citizenship  conferred 
by  it.  Every  person  born  under  the  Constitution  owes  allegiance  to  it,  and 
every  naturalized  citizen  takes  an  oath  to  support  it.  Fidelity  to  the  Con 
stitution  is  the  only  passport  to  the  enjoyment  of  rights  under  it.  When  a 
senator  elect  presents  his  credentials,  he  is  not  allowed  to  take  his  seat  until 
he  places  his  hand  upon  the  Holy  Evangelist,  and  appeals  to  his  God  for  the 
sincerity  of  his  vow  to  support  the  Constitution.  He  who  does  this,  with  a 
mental  reservation  or  secret  intention  to  disregard  any  provision  of  the  Con 
stitution,  commits  a  double  crime — is  morally  guilty  of  perfidy  to  his  God  and 
treason  to  his  country ! 

If  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  to  be  repudiated  upon  the  ground 
that  it  is  repugnant  to  the  divine  law,  where  are  the  friends  of  freedom  and 
Christianity  to  look  for  another  and  a  better  ?  Who  is  to  be  the  prophet  to 
reveal  the  will  of  God,  and  establish  a  theocracy  for  us? 

Is  he  to  be  found  in  the  ranks  of  Northern  abolitionism  or  of  Southern 
disunion ;  or  is  the  Common  Council  of  the  city  of  Chicago  to  have  the  dis 
tinguished  honor  of  furnishing  the  chosen  one  ?  I  will  not  venture  to  inquire 
what  are  to  be  the  form  and  principles  of  the  new  government,  or  to  whom 
is  to  be  intrusted  the  execution  of  its  sacred  functions ;  for  when  we  decide 
that  the  wisdom  of  our  Revolutionary  fathers  was  foolishness,  and  their  piety 
wickedness,  and  destroy  the  only  system  of  self-government  that  has  ever 
realized  the  hopes  of  the  friends  of  freedom,  and  commanded  the  respect  of 
mankind,  it  becomes  us  to  wait  patiently  until  the  purposes  of  the  Latter-Day 
Saints  shall  be  revealed  unto  us. 

For  my  part,  I  am  prepared  to  maintain  and  preserve  inviolate  the  Consti 
tution  as  it  is,  with  all  its  compromises ;  to  stand  or  fall  by  the  American 
Union,  clinging  with  the  tenacity  of  life  to  all  its  glorious  memories  of  the 
past  and  precious  hopes  for  the  future. 

Mr.  Douglas  then  explained  the  circumstances  which  rendered  his  absence 
unavoidable  when  the  vote  was  taken  on  the  Fugitive  Bill  in  the  Senate. 
He  wished  to  avoid  no  responsibility  on  account  of  that  absence,  and  there- 


186  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

fore  desired  it  to  be  distinctly  understood  that  he  should  have  voted  for  the 
bill  if  he  could  have  been  present.  He  referred  to  several  of  our  most  prom 
inent  and  respected  citizens  by  name  as  personally  cognizant  of  the  fact  that 
he  was  anxious  at  that  time  to  give  that  vote.  He  believed  the  passage  of 
that  or  some  other  efficient  law  a  solemn  duty,  imperatively  demanded  by  the 
Constitution.  In  conclusion,  Mr.  D.  made  an  earnest  appeal  to  our  citizens 
to  rally  as  one  man  to  the  defense  of  the  Constitution  and  laws,  and,  above 
all  things,  and  under  all  circumstances,  to  put  down  violence  and  disorder  by 
maintaining  the  supremacy  of  the  laws.  He  referred  to  our  high  character 
for  law  and  order  heretofore,  and  also  to  the  favorable  position  of  our  city  for 
commanding  the  trade  between  the  North  and  South,  through  our  canals 
and  railroads,  to  show  that  our  views  and  principles  of  action  should  be  broad, 
liberal,  and  national,  calculated  to  encourage  union  and  harmony  instead  of 
disunion  and  sectional  bitterness.  He  concluded  by  remarking  that  he  con 
sidered  this  question  of  fidelity  to  the  Constitution  and  supremacy  of  the  laws 
as  so  far  paramount  to  all  other  considerations,  that  he  had  prepared  some 
resolutions  to  cover  these  points  only,  which  he  would  submit  to  the  meeting, 
and  take  their  judgment  upon  them.  If  he  had  consulted  his  own  feelings 
and  views  only,  he  should  have  embraced  in  the  resolutions  a  specific  ap 
proval  of  all  the  measures  of  the  compromise ;  but  as  the  question  of  rebellion 
and  resistance  to  the  federal  government  has  been  distinctly  presented,  it  has 
been  thought  advisable  to  meet  that  issue  on  this  occasion,  distinct  and  sep 
arate  from  all  others. 

Mr.  Douglas  then  offered  the  following  resolutions,  which  were  adopted 
without  a  dissenting  voice : 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sacred  duty  of  every  friend  of  the  Union  to  main 
tain,  and  preserve  inviolate,  every  provision  of  our  federal  Constitution. 

Resolved,  That  any  law  enacted  by  Congress,  in  pursuance  of  the  Consti 
tution,  should  be  respected  as  such  by  all  good  and  law-abiding  citizens,  and 
should  be  faithfully  carried  into  effect  by  the  officers  charged  with  its  execu 
tion. 

Resolved,  That  so  long  as  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  provides 
that  all  persons  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  state,  escaping  into  another 
state,  ' '  SHALL  BE  DELIVERED  UP  on  the  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  the  serv 
ice  or  labor  may  be  due,"  and  so  long  as  members  of  Congress  are  required 
to  take  an  oath  to  support  the  Constitution,  it  is  their  solemn  and  religious 
duty  to  pass  all  laws  necessary  to  carry  that  provision  of  the  Constitution  into 
effect.  ' 

Resolved,  That  if  we  desire  to  preserve  the  Union,  and  render  our  great 
republic  inseparable  and  perjietual,  we  must  perform  all  our  obligations  under 
the  Constitution,  at  the  same  time  that  we  call  upon  our  brethren  in  other 
states  to  yield  impicit  obedience  to  it. 

Resolved,  That  as  the  lives,  property,  and  safety  of  ourselves  and  our  fami 
lies  depend  upon  the  observance  and  protection  of  the  laws,  every  effort  to 
excite  any  portion  of  our  population  to  make  resistance  to  the  due  execution 
of  the  laws  of  the  land  should  be  promptly  and  emphatically  condemned  by 
every  good  citizen. 

Resolved,  That  we  will  stand  or  fall  by  the  American  Union  and  its  Con 
stitution,  with  all  its  compromises,  with  its  glorious  memories  of  the  past  and 
precious  hopes  of  the  future. 

[The  following  was  offered  in  addition  by  B.  S.  Morris,  and  also  adopted  :] 

Resolved,  That  we,  the  people  of  Chicago,  repudiate  the  resolutions  passed 
by  the  Common  Council  of  Chicago  upon  the  subject  of  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law  passed  by  Congress  at  its  last  session. 

On  the  succeeding  night  the  Common  Council  of  the  city  repealed  their 
nullifying  resolution  by  a  vote  of  12  to  1. 


THE  KANSAS-NEBEASKA  ACT.  187 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE  KANSAS-NEBEASKA   ACT. 

WHATEVEE  question  or  doubt  may  have  existed  or  may  now 
exist  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  Compromise  Acts  of  1850  re 
specting  the  Territories,  there  is  not  the  slightest  question  as 
to  where  the  responsibility — the  honor  or  blame,  the  credit  or 
odium — for  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  belongs.  No  one  has 
denied  that  to  Stephen  A.  Douglas  belongs  whatever  fame 
that  justly  attaches  to  an  act  of  legislation,  which  has  been 
more  celebrated  (for  the  censure  by  its  enemies,  and  praise  by 
its  friends)  than  any  act  of  Congress  since  the  foundation  of 
the  government.  During  its  pendency  it  was  used  as  a  pre 
text  by  the  fanatics  of  the  North  for  the  wildest  exhibition  of 
ungovernable  fury.  It  drew  upon  its  author  the  most  un 
bounded  abuse  and  denunciation ;  while  it  was  pending  in 
Congress  a  storm,  such  as  has  never  been  known  in  the  politi 
cal  annals  of  the  country  was  gathering,  and  it  broke  with  all 
its  force  upon  his  head.  Undismayed  by  threats,  he  followed 
the  chart  that  he  had  laid  down,  and  has  lived  to  see  himself 
the  political  hero  and  leader  of  his  own  party  in  all  those 
states  where  the  storm  beat  fastest  and  raged  the  fiercest. 

Though  Mr.  Douglas  has  gained  all  the  credit  and  all  the 
opprobrium  of  the  "  Nebraska  Bill,"  and  to  a  great  extent  his 
name  is  more  prominently  associated  with  that,  than  with  any 
previous  act  of  public  interest,  the  truth  is,  that  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Act  and  its  repeal  of  the  Missouri  restriction  was  not 
an  original  measure.  It  was  but  a  second  volume  in  the  his 
tory  of  the  struggle  for  popular  right,  commenced  in  the  con 
test  over  the  Compromise  of  1850  ;  it  was  but  another  act  in 
the  grand  drama  which  in  1850  had  ended  with  a  full  recog 
nition  of  the  freedom  of  the  American  people,  whether  in 
state  or  territory,  to  regulate  their  own  domestic  relations 
without  interference  by  Congress.  The  Kansas-Nebraska  Act 
was  nothing  more  nor  less  than  an  act  to  extend  to  the  people 
of  Kansas  and  Nebraska  the  same  rights  and  privileges  which, 
in  1850,  by  the  advice,  by  the  aid  and  support  of  the  patriot 


188  LIFE   OP    STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

Henry  Clay,  had  been  extended  to  the  people  of  Utah  and 
New  Mexico.  Search  the  bill  from  one  end  to  the  other,  ex 
amine  in  detail  all  its  provisions,  and  it  will  be  found  to  con 
tain  no  more  and  no  less  than  that  the  free,  hardy,  white 
American  settlers  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska  shall  have  the 
same  right  to  govern  themselves  that  in  1850  was  extended 
to  the  semi-civilized  and  amalgamated  races  that  peopled  the 
newly  acquired  Territories  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah. 

But,  it  is  said,  in  passing  that  bill,  Douglas  repealed  the 
Missouri  restriction — repealed  the  act  of  Congress  which  de 
clared  that  north  of  the  line  of  36°  30'  slavery  should  not  exist, 
and  that  south  of  it,  it  might  exist.  It  repealed  a  guaranty 
and  a  prohibition — both  wrong  in  principle,  unconstitutional, 
and  wholly  inconsistent  with  any  sound  rule  of  justice  and 
propriety.  The  people  north  of  36°  30'  were  as  much  entitled 
to  have  slaves  if  they  desired  them  as  the  people  south  of  that 
line,  and  the  restriction  was  not  upon  slavery  but  upon  the 
freedom  and  political  rights  of  the  people.  South  of  36°  30' 
the  people  were  recognized  as  capable  of  self  government  and 
as  safe  depositaries  of  the  power  to  have  or  reject  the  institu 
tion  of  slavery,  while  those  living  north  of  that  line  were 
bound  with  the  degrading  limitation — that  if  left  to  govern 
themselves  they  would  certainly  misuse  the  power  to  their 
own  injury.  It  was  a  restriction  which  in  terms  and  effect 
discriminated  against  the  intelligence  and  capacity  of  the 
northern  people. 

As  has  been  shown  in  the  brief  history,  given  in  these  pages, 
of  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  the  struggle  in  those 
days  was  over  the  question  whether  the  people  should  be  al 
lowed  to  legislate  to  the  exclusion  or  introduction  of  African 
slavery.  The  struggle  took  place  on  the  "Omnibus  Bill," 
and  so  decisive  and  complete  was  the  action  then,  that  when 
that  Omnibus  broke  dowrn,  and  Mr.  Douglas'  separate  mea 
sures  came  up,  the  attempt  to  take  that  power  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  people  was  not  renewed,  and  the  bills  passed 
without  a  question  on  that  point. 

In  1854,  when  it  became  necessary  to  establish  a  territorial 
government  over  the  western  territory — a  proposition  long 
pending  but  never  seriously  needed  until  then — Mr.  Douglas, 
as  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories,  regarding  the 
action  of  the  Senate  and  of  Congress  upon  the  Compromise 


THE   KANSAS-NEBRASKA   ACT.  189 

Acts  of  1850,  and  also  the  emphatic  endorsement  of  those 
measures  by  the  people  in  1852,  as  conclusive  as  to  the  princi 
ples  upon  which  the  Territorial  question  should  be  governed, 
so  framed  his  bill  as  to  make  it  identical  in  all  essential  mat 
ters  with  the  acts  of  1850.  On  the  4th  of  January  he  re 
ported  the  bill  for  the  establishment  of  a  territorial  govern 
ment  for  Nebraska,  and  at  the  same  time  made  a  written 
report  which  stated  that  the  bill  was  designed  to  carry  out  in 
good  faith  the  principle  adopted  by  Congress  in  the  measures 
of  1850,  and  the  report  closed  as  follows: 

From  these  provisions  it  is  apparent  that  the  compromise  measures  of  1850 
affirm  and  rest  upon  the  following  propositions  : 

First. — That  all  questions  pertaining  to  slavery  in  the  territories,  and  in  the 
new  states  to  be  formed  therefrom,  are  to  be  left  to  the  decision  of  the  people 
residing  therein,  by  their  appropriate  representatives,  to  be  chosen  by  them  for 
that  purpose. 

Second. — That  "all  cases  involving  title  to  slaves,"  and  "  questions  of  per 
sonal  freedom,"  are  referred  to  the  adjudication  of  the  local  tribunals,  with  the 
right  of  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

Third. — That  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  in 
respect  to  fugitives  from  service,  is  to  be  carried  into  faithful  execution  in  all 
"  the  organized  territories"  the  same  as  in  the  states.  The  substitute  for  the 
bill  which  your  committee  have  prepared,  and  which  is  commended  to  the 
favorable  action  of  the  Senate,  proposes  to  carry  these  propositions  and  princi 
ples  into  practical  operation,  in  the  precise  language  of  the  compromise  meas 
ures  of  1§50. 

It  will  be  seen  by  the  report  that  the  committee  did  not  rec 
ommend  the  repeal,  in  express  terms,  of  the  Missouri  restric 
tion,  though  they  declared  that  the  bill,  as  reported  by  them, 
left  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  territory  "  to  the  decision 
of  the  people  residing  therein,  by  their  appropriate  representa 
tives  chosen  by  them  for  that  purpose."  Their  object  was  to 
leave  the  people  of  Nebraska  and  "Kansas,  as  the  people  of 
Utah  and  New  Mexico  had  been  left,  free  to  act  for  them 
selves  in  the  matter  of  slavery.  That  part  of  the  report  has 
been  frequently  quoted  by  the  enemies  of  popular  right  to 
show  that  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  an 
"  after-thought,"  and  agreed  upon  afterwards  at  the  dictation 
of  the  "  slave  oligarchy."  The  committee  stated  distinctly  that 
they  designed  to  leave  the  people  of  the  territory,  through 
their  legislature,  all  the  legislative  power  over  slavery,  and  all 
other  questions,  that  was  conceded  by  the  legislature  of  1850 
to  the  Territories  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico.  The  committee 
evidently  supposed  and  intended  that  the  words  of  the  bill 


190  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

declaring  "  that  the  legislative  power  of  said  territory  shall 
extend  to  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation,"  removed  all  ob 
stacles  to  the  exercise  of  that  power  over  the  subject  of  slavery ; 
and  that,  therefore,  the  act  of  Congress  interdicting  slavery 
might  be  left,  as  was  the  Mexican  law  in  the  other  cases,  to 
the  courts  for  a  decision  as  to  its  authority  and  legal  force. 
Be  that  as  it  may,  the  committee  soon  found  that  a  wide  dif 
ference  of  opinion  prevailed  in  the  Senate  as  to  the  effect  of 
the  language  of  the  bill.  Did  it  leave  the  territorial  legisla 
ture  free  to  act  upon  the  subject  of  slavery?  How  could  the 
legislature  act  when  an  act  of  Congress  stood  in  their  way  pro 
hibiting  the  existence  of  slavery  north  of  36°  30'.  It  was 
necessary  to  make  the  bill  clear  and  distinct  upon  this  point. 
Did  the  Missouri  restriction  bind  the  hands  of  the  territorial 
legislature  against  the  admission  of  slavery  ?  If  it  did,  then 
while  that  restriction  existed  as  a  law  the  people  of  Nebraska 
could  not  be  admitted  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  same  freedom 
in  legislation  that  was  secured  by  the  acts  of  1850  to  the  peo 
ple  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico;  and  consequently  the  principle 
of  the  Compromise  Act  could  not  be  applied  to  the  territorial 
act  designed  for  Nebraska  and  Kansas.  The  removal  of  the 
Missouri  restriction  was  imperatively  necessary  if  the  territo 
rial  legislature  was  to  be  left  free  to  exercise  the  power  of  legis 
lation  respecting  African  slavery.  To  do  that — to  remove  all 
obstacles  in  the  way  of  the  free  and  full  exercise  of  legislative 
power  over  that  as  well  as  all  other  subjects  of  domestic  concern 
— the  Missouri  restriction  was  repealed ;  it  was  repealed  for  no 
other  reason,  because  there  was  no  other  possible  reason  for 
repealing  it.  It  stood  in  the  way  of  the  practical  application 
of  the  principle  established  in  the  acts  of  1850.  If  allowed  to 
stand,  it  would  create  the  necessity  for  the  organization  of  ter 
ritorial  governments  for  Nebraska  and  Kansas  on  a  principle 
and  theory  totally  distinct  and  different  from  that  followed  in 
the  cases  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico.  The  North,  in  1850,  had 
perseveringly  and  successfully  struggled  for  the  recognition 
of  the  power  and  authority  of  the  territorial  legislature  over 
the  subject  of  African  slavery.  The  North,  by  an  almost  unani 
mous  vote  for  Scott  and  Pierce  in  1852,  had  approved  and 
ratified  the  action  of  Congress  in  1850.  Was  the  North  now, 
in  1854,  to  change  front?  Was  the  North  to  repudiate  the 


THE   KANSAS-NEBKASKA   ACT.  191 

principles  it  had  asserted  in  1850,  and  clamor  again  for  the 
empty  and  valueless  Congressional  prohibition  ? 

On  the  first  day  of  the  session  Mr.  Dodge,  of  Iowa,  gave 
notice  of  his  intention  to  introduce  a  bill  for  the  government 
of  the  Territory  of  Nebraska ;  on  the  4th  of  December  he  did 
introduce  the  bill,  which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Territories,  of  which  Mr.  Douglas  was  chairman.  On  the  4th 
of  January  Mr.  Douglas,  as  has  been  stated,  reported  the  bill 
back  with  amendments.  On  the  23d  of  January  the  commit 
tee  made  the  report  already  noticed,  and  reported  a  further 
amendment  dividing  the  immense  region  into  two  territories, 
Kansas  and  Nebraska.  This  division  was  made  upon  the  soli 
citation  of  the  representatives  of  the  people  of  the  territory, 
and  by  the  advice  of  the  representatives  in  Congress  from  Iowa 
and  Missouri. 

In  the  meantime,  on  the  16th  of  January,  Mr.  Dixon,  of  Ken 
tucky,  had  given  notice  that  when  the  bill  was  taken  up  for 
action  he  would  offer  as  an  amendment  the  following : 

"  That  so  much  of  the  eighth  section  of  an  act  approved  March  6,  1820, 
entitled  '  An  Act  to  authorize  the  people  of  the  Missouri  Territory  to  form  a 
Constitution  and  state  government,  and  for  the  admission  of  such  state  into 
the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  states,  and  to  prohibit  slavery 
in  certain  territories,'  as  declares  'that  in  all  that  territory  ceded  by  France 
to  the  United  States,  under  the  name  of  Louisiana,  which  lies  north  of  thirty- 
six  degrees  thirty  minutes  north  latitude,  slavery  and  involuntary  servitude, 
otherwise  than  as  a  punishment  of  crimes  whereof  the  parties  shah1  have  been 
duly  convicted,  shah1  be  forever  prohibited,'  shall  not  be  so  construed  as  to 
apply  to  the  territory  contemplated  by  this  act,  or  to  any  other  territory  of 
the  United  States ;  but  that  the  citizens  of  the  several  states  or  territories  shall 
~be  at  liberty  to  take  and  hold  their  slaves  within  any  of  the  territories  of  the 
United  States  or  of  the  states  to  be  formed  therefrom,  as  if  the  said  act,  entitled 
as  aforesaid,  and  approved  as  aforesaid,  had  never  been  passed." 

Here  was  the  same  proposition  which  in  1850  had  been  re 
jected  by  Congress,  and  voted  down  by  the  friends  of  the 
Compromise.  It  was  a  proposition  declaring  the  right  of  the 
slaveholder  to  carry  his  slaves  into  the  territory.  In  1850, 
those  who  supported  the  right  of  the  territorial  legislature  to 
legislate  on  that  subject  refused  to  declare  by  Congressional 
act  the  right  to  take  slaves  into  the  territory,  because  such  a 
provision  in  an  act  of  Congress  would  override  an  act  of  the 
territorial  legislature.  In  the  bill,  as  reported  on  the  23d  of 
January,  the  committee  expressed  more  clearly  what  was  ori 
ginally  their  intention  respecting  the  removal  of  the  Missouri  i 


192  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

restriction.     In  the  fourteenth  section  of  the  Nebraska-Kansas 
act  they  provided : 

w  That  the  Constitution  and  all  laws  of  the  United  States  which  are  not 
locally  inapplicable,  shall  have  the  same  force  and  effect  within  the  said  terri 
tory  of  Nebraska  as  elsewhere  within  the  United  States ;  except  the  eighth 
section  of  the  act  preparatory  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union, 
approved  March  sixch,  eighteen  hundred  and  twenty,  which  was  superseded 
by  the  principles  of  the  legislation  of  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty,  commonly 
called  the  compromise  measures,  and  is  hereby  declared  inoperative." 

We  doubt  whether  in  the  history  of  legislation  any  one  sen 
tence  in  a  proposed  measure  ever  furnished  the  pretext  for  a 
political  agitation  equal  to  that  which  followed  the  report  of 
the  above. 

The  necessity  for  repealing  the  Missouri  restriction,  if  it  was 
intended  to  frame  the  Nebraska  bill  by  the  principles  of  the 
acts  of  1850,  had  been  seen  as  well  by  the  extremists  at  the 
north  as  by  those  of  the  south ;  and,  almost  simultaneously 
with  Mr.  Dixon's  proposition  to  extend  slavery,  another  was 
presented  by  Mr.  Sumner,  of  Massachusetts,  that  nothing  con 
tained  in  the  bill  "  shall  be  construed  to  abrogate  or  in  any 
way  contravene  the  act  of  March  6,  1820,"  in  which  it  was 
declared  that  slavery  was  prohibited  in  the  Louisiana  territory 
north  of  36°  30'. 

Here  was  the  old  contest  of  1850  about  to  be  renewed. 
The  Dixon  amendment,  proposing  to  recognize  an  extension 
of  slavery  by  Congressional  enactment ;  the  Sumner  amend 
ment  proposing  a  Congressional  prohibition  of  slavery.  Both 
were  opposed  to  and  inconsistent  with  the  right  of  the  terri 
torial  legislature  to  regulate  that  as  well  as  all  other  domestic 
relations ;  which  right  having  been  expressly  conceded  to  the 
people  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah  by  the  acts  of  1850,  it  was 
the  aim  and  purpose  of  Mr.  Douglas  to  secure  to  'the  people 
of  Nebraska  and  Kansas.  He  rejected  both  propositions,  and 
adhered  to  the  principle  and  policy  so  emphatically  sanctioned 
in  1850  by  Congress  and  subsequently  ratified  by  the  people. 

On  Tuesday,  January  24,  the  bill  was  taken  up.  Mr. 
Chase,  of  Ohio,  urged  that  the  Senate  had  not  had  an  oppor 
tunity  of  examining  the  bill;  he  said,  "only  yesterday  the 
committee  changed  the  form  of  the  bill  altogether,  and  pro 
posed  to  create  two  territories  instead  of  one,  and  also  changed 
materially  the  provisions  upon  other  questions  of  very  great 
public  interest ;  and  the  bill  thus  having  been  changed  in  fact 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA   ACT.  193 

into  two  bills,  has  been  only  laid  on  the  tables  of  Senators  this 
morning,  and  I  presume  no  one  has  had  an  opportunity  to 
read  it.  It  involves  very  important  matters,  and  I  think  that 
when  we  take  it  up  it  should  be  with  a  determination  to  pro 
ceed  with  it  until  it  shall  be  disposed  of."  He  then  urged  that 
it  be  postponed  until  the  next  week. 

Mr.  Sumner  suggested  that  it  be  postponed  until  the  31st  of 
January. 

Mr.  Douglas  acquiesced  in  the  request,  and  on  his  motion 
the  bill  was  postponed  to  Monday,  January  30th. 

This  request  to  postpone  an  important  bill  for  one  week 
may  seem  to  the  reader  to  have  been  a  trivial  matter  for 
special  notice  here,  but  it  subsequently  became  the  subject  of 
a  protracted  and  exciting  debate.  The  request  was  made  on 
Tuesday,  January  24th.  On  the  Monday  after,  January  30th, 
the  bill  was  again  taken  up,  and  the  request  of  Mr.  Chase, 
with  its  purposes  and  aims,  were  made  historical  in  all  their 
infamy. 

As  soon  as  the  bill  was  taken  up  Mr.  Douglas  said : 

"  "When  I  proposed,  on  Tuesday  last,  that  the  Senate  should  proceed  to  the 
consideration  of  the  bill  to  organize  the  Territories  of  Nebraska  and  Kansas, 
it  was  my  purpose  only  to  occupy  ten  or  fifteen  minutes  in  explanation  of  its 
provisions.  I  desired  to  refer  to  two  points — first,  to  those  provisions  relating 
to  the  Indians,  and  second,  to  those  which  might  be  supposed  to  bear  upon 
the  question  of  slavery.  *  *  *  * 

"  Upon  the  other  point — that  pertaining  to  the  question  of  slavery  in  the 
territories — it  was  the  intention  of  the  committee  to  be  equally  explicit.  ,  "We 
took  the  principles  established  by  the  compromise  acts  of  1850  as  our  guide, 
and  intended  to  make  each  and  every  provision  of  the  bill  accord  with  these 
principles.  These  measures  are  established  and  rest  upon  the  great  principles 
of  self-government — that  the  people  should  be  allowed  to  decide  the  ques 
tions  of  their  domestic  institutions  for  themselves,  subject  only  to  such  limita 
tions  and  restrictions  as  are  imposed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
instead  of  having  them  determined  by  an  arbitrary  or  geographical  line. 

"  The  original  bill  reported  by  the  committee  as  a  substitute  for  the  bill  In 
troduced  by  the  senator  from  Iowa  (Mr.  Dodge),  was  believed  to  have  accom 
plished  this  object.  The  amendment  which  was  subsequently  reported  by  us 
was  only  designed  to  render  that  clear  and  specific  which  seemed,  in  the 
minds  of  some,  to  admit  of  doubt  and  misconstruction.  In  some  parts  of  the 
country  the  original  substitute  was  deemed  and  construed  to  be  an  annul 
ment  or  a  repeal  of  what  has  been  known  as  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
while  in  other  parts  it  was  otherwise  construed.  As  the  object  of  the  com 
mittee  was  to  conform  to  the  principles  established  by  the  compromise  meas 
ures  of  1850,  and  to  carry  these  principles  into  effect  in  the  territories,  we 
thought  it  was  better  to  recite  in  the  bill  precisely  what  we  understood  to 
have  been  accomplished  by  those  measures,  viz.,  that  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise,  having  been  superseded  by  the  legislation  of  1850,  has  become,  and 
ought  to  be  declared,  inoperative ;  and  hence  we  propose  to  leave  the  ques- 

I 


194  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

tion  to  the  people  of  the  states  and  the  territories,  subject  only  to  the  limita 
tions  and  provisions  of  the  Constitution. 

"  Sir,  this  is  all  that  I  intended  to  say  if  the  question  had  been  taken  up  for 
consideration  on  Tuesday  last,  but  since  that  time  occurrences  have  transpired 
which  compel  me  to  go  more  fully  into  the  discussion.  It  will  be  borne  in 
mind  that  the  Senator  from  Ohio  (Mr.  Chase),  then  objected  to  the  considera 
tion  of  the  bill,  and  asked  for  its  postponement  until  this  day,  on  the  ground 
that  there  had  not  been  time  to  understand  and  consider  its  provisions ;  and 
the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Sumner)  suggested  that  the  postpone 
ment  should  be  for  one  week  for  that  purpose.  These  suggestions  seeming  to 
be  reasonable  in  the  opinion  of  senators  around  me  I  yielded  to  their  request, 
and  consented  to  the  postponement  of  the  bill  until  this  day. 

"  Sir.  little  did  I  suppose,  at  the  time  that  I  granted  that  act  of  courtesy  to 
those  two  senators,  that  they  had  drafted  and  published  to  the  world  a  docu 
ment,  over  their  own  signatures,  in  which  they  arraigned  me  as  having  been 
guilty  of  a  criminal  betrayal  of  my  trust,  as  having  been  guilty  of  an  act  of 
bad  faith,  and  as  having  been  engaged  in  an  atrocious  plot  against  the  cause 
of  free  government.  Little  did  I  suppose  that  those  two  senators  had  been 
guilty  of  such  conduct,  when  they  called  upon  me  to  grant  that  courtesy,  to 
give  them  an  opportunity  of  investigating  the  substitute  reported  by  the  com 
mittee.  I  have  since  discovered  that  on  that  very  morning  the  National  Era, 
the  abolition  organ  in  this  city,  contained  an  address,  signed  by  certain  aboli 
tion  confederates,  to  the  people,  in  which  the  bill  is  grossly  misrepresented, 
in  which  the  action  of  the  committee  is  grossly  perverted,  in  which  our  mo 
tives  are  arraigned  and,  our  characters  calumniated.  And,  sir,  what  is  more, 
I  find  that  there  was  a  postscript  added  to  the  address,  published  that  very 
morning,  in  which  the  principal  amendment  reported  by  the  committee  was 
set  out,  and  then  coarse  epithets  applied  to  me  by  name.  Sir,  had  I  known 
those  facts  at  the  time  I  granted  that  act  of  indulgence,  I  should  have  re 
sponded  to  the  request  of  those  senators  in  such  terms  as  their  conduct 
deserved,  so  far  as  the  rules  of  the  Senate  and  a  respect  for  my  own  character 
would  have  permitted  me  to  do.  In  order  to  show  the  character  of  this  docu 
ment,  of  which  I  shall  have  much  to  say  in  the  course  of  my  argument,  I 
will  read  certain  passages  : 

"  '  We  arraign  this  bill  as  a  gross  violation  of  a  sacred  pledge ;  as  a  crim 
inal  betrayal  of  precious  rights ;  as  part  and  parcel  of  an  atrocious  plot  to 
exclude  from  a  vast  unoccupied  region  emigrants  from  the  Old  World  and  free 
laborers  from  our  own  states,  and  convert  it  into  a  dreary  region  of  despot 
ism,  inhabited  by  masters  and  slaves.' 

"A  Senator.     By  whom  is  the  address  signed? 

"  Mr.  Douglas.  It  is  signed  'S.  P.  Chase,  senator  from  Ohio,  Charles  Sum 
ner,  senator  from  Massachusetts,  J.  E.  Giddings  and  Edward  Wade,  repre 
sentatives  from  Ohio,  G-errit  Smith,  representative  from  New  York,  Alexan 
der  De  Witt,  representative  from  Massachusetts;'  including,  as  I  understand, 
all  the  abolition  party  in  Congress. 

"  Then,  speaking  of  the  Committee  on  Territories,  these  confederates  use 
this  language : 

" '  The  pretences,  therefore,  that  the  territory,  covered  by  the  positive  pro 
hibition  of  1820,  sustains  a  similar  relation  to  slavery  with  that  acquired  from 
Mexico,  covered  by  no  prohibition  except  that  of  disputed  constitutional  or 
Mexican  law,  and  that  the  Compromises  of  1850  require  the  incorporation  of 
the  pro-slavery  clause  of  the  Utah  and  New  Mexico  bill  in  the  Nebraska  act, 
are  more  inventions,  designed  to  cover  up  from  public  reprehension  mi"" 
lad  faith.1 

"  '  Mere  inventions  to  cover  up  bad  faith,'     Again : 


THE  KANSAS-NEBKAKA   ACT.  195 

"  '  Servile  demagogues  may  tell  you  that  the  Union  can  be  maintained  only 
by  submitting  to  the  demands  of  slavery.'  " 

"Then  there  is  a  postscript  added,  equally  offensive  to  myself,  in  which  I  am 
mentioned  by  name.  The  address  goes  on  to  make  an  appeal  to  the  Legisla 
tures  of  the  different  states,  to  public  meetings,  and  to  ministers  of  tho  gospel 
in  their  pulpits,  to  interpose  and  arrest  the  vile  proceeding  which  is  about  to 
be  consummated  by  the  senators  who  are  thus  denounced.  That  address,  sir, 
bears  date  Sunday,  January  22,  1854.  Thus  it  appears  that  on  the  holy 
Sabbath,  while  other  senators  were  engaged  in  divine  worship,  these  abolition 
confederates  were  assembled  in  secret  conclave,  plotting  by  what  means  they 
should  deceive  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  prostrate  the  character  of 
brother  senators.  This  was  done  on  the  Sabbath  day,  and  by  a  set  of  poli 
ticians,  to  advance  their  own  political  and  ambitious  purposes,  in  the  name  of 
our  holy  religion. 

"  But  this  is  not  all.  It  was  understood  from  the  newspapers  that  resolutions 
were  pending  before  the  Legislature  of  Ohio  proposing  to  express  thoir  opinions 
upon  this  subject.  It  was  necessary  for  these  confederates  to  get  up  some 
exposition  of  the  question  by  which  they  might  facilitate  tho  passage  of  the 
resolutions  through  that  Legislature.  Hence  you  find  that  on  the  same  morn 
ing  that  this  document  appears  over  the  names  of  these  confederates  in  the 
abolition  organs  in  this  city,  the  same  document  appears  in  the  New  York 
papers — certainly  in  the  Tribune,  Times,  and  Evening  Post — in  which  it  stated, 
on  authority,  that  it  is  '  signed  by  the  senators  and  a  majority  of  the  repre 
sentatives  from  the  State  of  Ohio' — a  statement  which  I  have  every  reason  to 
believe  was  utterly  false,  and  known  to  be  so  at  the  time  that  these  confed 
erates  appended  it  to  the  address.  It  was  necessary  in  order  to  carry  out  this 
work  of  deception,  and  to  hasten  the  action  of  the  Ohio  Legislature,  under  a 
misapprehension  of  the  real  facts,  to  state  that  it  was  signed,  not  only  by  the 
abolition  confederates,  but  by  the  whole  AVhig  representation,  and  a  portion  of 
the  Democratic  representation  in  the  other  House  from  the  State  of  Ohio. 

"  Mr.  Chase.     Mr.  President— 

"  Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  President,  I  do  not  yield  the  floor.  A  senator  who  has 
violated  all  the  rules  of  courtesy  and  propriety,  who  showed  a  consciousness 
of  the  character  of  the  act  he  was  doing  by  concealing  from  me  all  knowledge 
of  the  fact — who  came  to  me  with  a  smiling  face,  and  the  appearance  of 
friendship,  even  after  that  document  had  been  uttered — who  could  get  up  in 
the  Senate  and  appeal  to  my  courtesy  in  order  to  get  tune  to  give  the  docu 
ment  a  wider  circulation  before  its  infamy  could  be  exposed — such  a  senator  has 
no  right  to  my  courtesy  upon  this  floor." 

Mr.  Douglas  then,  in  an  argument  extended  over  two  hours, 
discussed  the  general  history  of  the  legislation  by  Congress 
upon  the  subject  of  slavery  in  Congress,  and  in  defense  of  his 
position  that  the  principle  established  in  the  acts  of  1850  was 
inconsistent  with  a  congressional  prohibition  of  slavery,  such 
as  was  contained  in  the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  Act. 

Mr.  Chase  followed  in  a  lame  apology.  He  ignored  the  fact 
that  on  the  24th  he  had  suggested  that  no  senator  had  read 
the  bill.  He  admitted  that  the  address  had  been  published  in 
one  New  York  paper  on  the  23d,  and  said  that  the  date  pre 
fixed  to  the  document  as  printed  was  a  typographical  error 


196  LIFE    OP   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

The  representation  made  that  the  address  bore  the  signatures 
of  a  majority  of  the  Ohio  delegates  was  made  under  an  impres 
sion  that  they  would  sign  it ;  but  as  alterations  in  the  docu 
ment  were  demanded,  which  could  not  be  conceded,  the 
address  had  been  sent  out  in  the  original  form  by  those  whose 
names  had  been  attached  to  it.  He  produced  a  copy  of  the 
address  bearing  date  January  19th,  yet  even  in  that  copy  there 
was  set  forth  a  correct  copy  of  the  fourteenth  section  of  the 
bill  as  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Territories  on  Monday, 
January  23d.  How  a  copy  of  that  section  had  been  obtained, 
so  as  to  incorporate  it  in  an  address  bearing  date  the  19th, 
was  not  explained. 

Mr.  Sumner  declined  any  explanation.  He  fell  back  upon  his 
dignity,  and  assumed  all  the  responsibility  for  what  he  had  done. 

The  trick,  so  far  as  it  was  designed  to  create  a  false  impres 
sion  of  the  character  of  the  bill,  and  to  produce  a  violent  hos 
tility  to  it,  founded  upon  that  false  impression,  was  more  suc 
cessful,  perhaps,  than  any  like  disreputable  act  had  ever  been. 
The  Legislatures  of  most  of  the  states  were  then  in  session  : 
this  address  reached  the  members ;  no  explanation  of  the  bill 
had  been  made  in  Congress  ;  its  terms  and  provisions  had  not 
been  published  in  the  newspapers  of  the  day.  The  address 
was  sent  all  over  the  North.  It  found  its  way  by  hundreds 
into  every  village  in  the  Northern  states.  Petitions  and  re 
monstrances  were  printed  and  sent  abroad  for  signatures.  In 
the  absence  of  all  explanations  or  counter  statements,  the  Ian-, 
guage  of  the  address  was  well  calculated  to  produce  alarm  and 
excitement.  Its  appeals  were  earnest,  and  its  authors  had  not 
hesitated  to  assert  untruths  whenever  such  would  serve  to 
make  their  appeal  more  forcible  or  their  pathos  more  sensa 
tional. 

Here  is  an  extract : 

"  Take  your  maps,  fellow-citizens,  we*  entreat  you,  and  see  what  country  it 
is  which  this  bill,  gratuitously  and  recklessly,  proposes  to  open  to  slavery." 
********  * 

"  This  immense  region,  occupying  the  very  heart  of  the  North  American 
continent,  and  larger  by  thirty-three  thousand  square  miles  than  all  the  ex 
isting  free  states,  excluding  California, — this  immense  region,  well  watered 
and  fertile,  through  which  the  middle  and  northern  routes,  from  the  Atlantic 
to  the  Pacific  must  pass, — this  immense  region,  embracing  all  the  unorgan 
ized  territory  of  the  nation,  except  the  comparatively  insignificant  district 
of  Indian  Territory  north  of  Eed  River,  and  between  Arkansas  and  Texas, 
and  now  for  more  than  thirty  years  regarded  by  the  common  consent  of  the 


THE   KANSAS-NEBKASKA   ACT.  197 

American  people  as  consecrated  to  freedom  by  statute  and  compact — this 
immense  region  the  bill  now  before  the  Senate,  without  reason  and  without 
excuse,  but  in  flagrant  disregard  of  sound  policy  and  sacred  faith,  purposes  to 
open  to  slavery.'1'1  *  *  *  *  * 

"  We  confess  our  total  inability  properly  to  delineate  the  character  or  de 
scribe  the  consequences  of  this  measure.  Language  fails  to  express  the  senti 
ments  of  indignation  and  abhorrence  which  it  inspires ;  and  no  vision  less 
penetrating  and  comprehensive  than  that  of  the  All-Seeing  can  reach  its  evil 
issues. 

"  "We  appeal  to  the  people.  "We  warn  you  that  the  dearest  interests  of  free 
dom  and  the  Union  are  in  imminent  peril. 

"  "We  implore  Christians  and  Christian  ministers  to  interpose.  Their  divine 
religion  requires  them  to  behold  in  every  man  a  brother,  and  to  labor  for  the 
advancement  and  regeneration  of  the  human  race." 

Reader,  the  bill  of  which  these  men  were  writing  was  one 
declaring  that  the  free  white  men  of  Nebraska  and  Kansas, 
like  their  countrymen  in  the  states  and  territories,  were  cap 
able  of  self-government,  and  that  they  were  of  right  entitled 
to  and  ought  to  be  allowed  the  privilege  of  legislating  as  freely 
upon  the  subject  of  African  slavery  as  upon  any  other  question 
of  territorial  government. 

The  circulation  of  this  address  was  promptly  followed  by 
every  possible  effort  to  prejudice  the  public  mind  against  the 
bill.  Thousands  of  the  people  did  get  alarmed.  They  did 
believe  that  "  the  interests  of  freedom  and  the  Union  were  in 
imminent  peril."  Agitation  was  incessant;  excitement  fol 
lowed  agitation  and  in  a  few  weeks  the  evil  work  of  misrepre 
sentation  and  fanaticism  had  accomplished  to  a  great  extent 
its  ends.  Christian  ministers  in  all  sincerity  believed  the  state 
ments  of  the  address.  They  never  supposed  that  men  holding 
high  position  as  senators  would,  under  an  appeal  in  the  name 
of  Christianity,  promulgate  the  wildest  perversions  of  truth. 
They  thought  that  an  irreparable  evil  was  threatened  in  the 
Nebraska  bill ;  they,  therefore,  hurriedly  affixed  their  names 
to  printed  petitions  prepared  and  distributed  among  them. 
By  the  trick  described,  the  conspirators  had  gained  an  advan 
tage  over  the  supporters  of  the  bill.  Their  address  had  been 
issued  ten  days  before  any  explanation  of  the  bill  had  been 
made,  and  when  that  explanation  was  made,  it  was  impossible 
to  send  it  where  the  address  had  gone.  In  the  interval,  an 
opposition  to  the  bill,  and  a  prejudice  against  its  author  and 
supporters  had  been  established  so  immovably  that  it  was 
almost  useless  to  rely  upon  any  other  means  than  time  to  vin 
dicate  the  truth. 


198  LIFE   OF  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

The  Legislature  of  Rhode  Island  was  the  first  to  respond  to 
the  address.  Resolutions  denouncing  the  bill  in  general  terms 
were  promptly  introduced  and  passed  both  Houses,  and  were 
actually  presented  to  Congress  on  that  same  30th  of  January 
when  the  bill  was  first  taken  up  for  consideration. 

On  the  1st  of  February,  Mr.  Sumner  presented  a  memorial 
from  citizens  of  Pennsylvania  remonstrating  against  the  exten 
sion  of  slavery  to  territory  from  which  it  had  been  excluded 
by  the  Missouri  Compromise ;  and  thenceforth,  day  after  day 
until  a  late  period  of  the  session,  and  long  after  the  passage  of 
the  act,  petitions  and  remonstrances,  responsive  to  the  address, 
were  presented  to  both  Houses  of  Congress.  It  was  soon  an 
nounced  and  was  so  stated  in  debate  in  Congress,  that  the 
great  body  of  the  clergy  of  the  North  were  uniting  in  a  pro 
test  against  the  bill.  Though  not  chronologically  in  order  at 
this  point  of  the  history  of  the  bill,  yet,  as  it  formed  part,  and 
a  leading  part,  of  the  great  warfare  made  upon  the  bill  and  its 
author,  it  may  as  well  be  noticed  at  this  time.  The  form  of 
the  remonstrance  or  protest  was  the  same  in  all  parts  of  the 
country.  The  protest  subsequently  presented  to  the  Senate 
by  Mr.  Everett  from  the  three  thousand  and  fifty  clergymen 
of  New  England  was  in  the  following  words : 

"  To  the  Honorable  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  in  Congress 

assembled : 

"The  undersigned,  clergymen  of  different  religious  denominations  in  New 
England,  hereby,  in  the  name  of  Almighty  God,  and  in  his  presence,  do  so 
lemnly  protest  against  the  passage  of  what  is  known  as  the  Nebraska  bill,  or 
any  repeal  or  modification  of  the  existing  legal  prohibitions  of  slavery  in  that 
part  of  our  national  domain  which  it  is  proposed  to  organize  into  the  Terri 
tories  of  Nebraska  and  Kansas.  We  protest  against  it  as  a  great  moral  wrong, 
as  a  breach  of  faith,  eminently  unjust  to  the  moral  principles  of  the  community 
and  subversive  of  all  confidence  in  national  engagements ;  as  a  measure  full  of 
danger  to  the  peace  and  even  the  existence  of  our  beloved  Union,  and  expos 
ing  us  to  the  righteous  judgments  of  the  Almighty ;  and  your  protestants,  as 
in  duty  bound,  will  ever  pray. 

"Boston,  Massachusetts,  March  1,  1854." 

This  memorial,  or  protest,  as  was  explained  by  Mr.  Everett, 
though  dated  March  1,  had  been  signed  by  nearly  all  the  pro 
testants  long  previous  to  that  day.  It  had  taken  weeks  to  col 
lect  and  arrange  all  the  signatures,  and  its  date  was  probably 
the  day  on  which  the  roll  was  completed  and  forwarded  to 
Washington.  It  was  presented  to  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Everett 
on  March  14 — ten  days  after  the  bill  had  passed  the  Senate. 


THE   KANSAS-NEBKASKA  ACT.  199 

A  debate  ensued,  and  a  warm  one.  The  protestants  were 
charged  with  having  assumed  an  authority  which  they  did  not 
possess ;  that  they  presumed  to  speak  to  the  Senate  in  the 
name  of  the  Almighty,  and  to  pronounce  his  judgments  upon 
the  Senate  for  their  conduct  in  passing  the  measure.  Mr. 
Douglas  bore  a  conspicuous  part  in  this  debate.  A  similar 
memorial  from  clergymen  in  the  northwest  was  subsequently 
forwarded  to  him  for  presentation,  and  upon  matters  growing 
out  of  that  he  expressed  his  sentiments  at  large,  in  speeches 
and  by  letter. 

On  the  27th  of  March  a  meeting  was  held  in  Chicago,  at 
which  twenty-five  clergymen  were  present.  They  adopted  a 
protest  against  the  Nebraska  bill,  and  passed  a  series  of  reso 
lutions  denouncing  Mr.  Douglas  and  other  senators  for  their 
remarks  upon  the  protest  of  the  New  England  clergymen. 
Printed  slips  of  the  proceedings  of  the  meeting  and  of  the  pro 
test  and  resolutions  were  forwarded  to  Mr,  Douglas.  He, 
under  date  of  April  6,  addressed  a  very  elaborate  letter  to  the 
reverend  gentlemen  composing  the  meeting,  in  which  he  de 
fended  himself  and  his  fellow-senators  from  unjust  accusations 
set  forth  in  the  resolutions. 

In  replying  to  the  reflections  cast  upon  him  by  the  resolu 
tions,  he  quoted  the  protest  adopted  at  the  meeting,  from  the 
printed  slips  and  newspapers  of  Chicago  sent  to  him. 

On  the  8th  of  May  following,  Mr.  Douglas  presented  to  the 
Senate  a  protest  which  the  Rev.  A.  M.  Stewart  certified  to  be 
a  true  copy  of  the  protest  adopted  at  the  meeting  of  the 
twenty-five  clergymen  at  Chicago  on  the  27th  of  March.  It 
had  been  detained  until  it  had*  received  the  signatures  of  504 
clergymen  of  the  northwest.  As  in  his  letter  he  had  treated 
the  protest  adopted  by  these  gentlemen  as  identical  in  terms 
with  that  of  the  New  England  clergymen,  and  as  the  one 
communicated  to  him  by  Mr.  Stewart  was  quite  different,  in 
asmuch  as  that  it  did  not  contain  the  words  "  in  the  name  of 
Almighty  God,"  Mr.  Douglas  explained  his  action  in  the 
matter.  He  had  received  from  Chicago  an  envelope  containing 
a  printed  slip  with  the  proceedings  of  the  meeting ;  he  had 
also  received  copies  of  two  of  the  daily  papers — both  hostile 
to  him  politically,  in  which  the  protest  and  resolutions  were 
set  forth  over  the  signatures  of  the  officers  of  the  meeting, 
precisely  as  he  had  quoted  them  in  his  letter.  He  had  never 


200  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

doubted  the  correctness  of  those  published  reports  of  the  pro 
ceedings,  until  after  the  publication  of  his  letter  of  reply.  He 
then  read  in  one  of  the  Chicago  abolition  papers  a  series  of  let 
ters  written  by  "  one  of  the  twenty-five,"  in  which  he  was  ac 
cused  of  having  attributed  language  to  the  Chicago  clergymen 
which  they  had  not  employed,  and  denounced  for  having  re 
primanded  them  unjustly. 

Mr.  Douglas  in  explaining  this  matter  in  the  Senate,  said  : 

"  After  seeing  the  denials  to  which  I  have  referred,  I  wrote  to  Chicago  to  as 
certain  how  the  mistake  occurred.  My  letters  inform  me  that  the  facts  are 
these:  The  meeting  was  held  on  the  day  stated,  the  27th  of  March.  The 
proceedings  of  the  meeting  were  furnished  by  the  secretary  to  the  Chicago 
Tribune,  the  paper  which  they  have  selected  as  their  organ.  They  were 
printed  at  the  Tribune  office ;  slips  were  sent  to  the  other  papers ;  and  the 
slip  sent  to  me  contained  the  proceedings  of  that  meeting,  as  furnished  by  the 
secretary.  But  after  the  publication,  and  when  the  community  condemned 
the  blasphemy  of  the  protest,  and  these  clergymen  found  that  their  own  con 
gregations  would  not  submit  to  it,  one  of  them  called  upon  the  editor,  took 
back  the  proceedings,  alleged  that  there  was  an  error  in  them,  struck  out 
those  words,  and  had  the  proceedings  republished  as  corrected,  but  did  not 
send  the  republication  to  me,  and  I  never  knew  of  it  until  I  wrote  to  Chicago 
for  the  facts.  I  do  not  complain  of  their  withdrawing  the  expression  referred 
to.  I  am  glad  they  did  so.  I  am  glad  they  saw  the  error  which  they  had 
committed,  and  corrected  it.  But,  sir,  I  submit  to  you  whether  it  was  right 
for  men,  fair-minded  men,  whatever  their  profession,  after  changing  their  me 
morial,  to  come  out  and  charge  me  with  fraud,  because  I  replied  to  it  in  the 
language  in  which  they  sent  it  to  me.  I  admit  their  right  to  make  the  modi 
fication.  It  was  their  duty  to  make  that  modification.  But  why  persevere 
in  a  charge  running  through  five  numbers  of  a  newspaper,  over  the  signature 
of  "  One  of  the  Twenty-five,"  endeavoring  to  fasten  fraud  upon  me,  when  I 
have  evidence  to  prove  that  they  published  their  memorial  in  the  shape  in 
which  I  answered  it  ?  I  received  it  from  them  in  that  shape.  I  answered  it 
as  I  found  it ;  and  if  they  have  discovered  their  error,  and  corrected  it,  they 
ought  to  acknowledge  the  fact,  instead  of  charging  fraud  on  me.  I  make  no 
charge  against  them ;  I  am  only  vindicating  myself.  But,  as  far  as  I  can  see, 
the  only  change  was  in  these  words.  Now,  let  me  go  a  little  further,  and  as 
sume  that  these  words,  'in  the  name  of  Almighty  God,'  got  into  their  me 
morial  by  mistake ;  why  did  they  not  call  upon  the  editor  of  their  paper,  who 
published  it,  to  explain  how  that  mistake  occurred,  instead  of  charging  it 
upon  me  ?" 

This  matter  may  seem  to  be  unworthy  the  space  it  occupies, 
yet  it  serves  to  show  how  pertinaciously  and  unjustly  he  was 
pursued  by  those  who  honestly  or  otherwise  regarded  the 
Nebraska  Act  as  a  wrong.  For  months  he  was  denounced 
through  all  the  opposition  papers  of  the  North  with  having 
falsified  the  protest  of  the  clergy  of  Chicago  in  order  to  write 
a  reply  ;  and  with  having  attributed  to  them  language  which 
they  had  never  used.  Nor  was  the  denunciation  confined  to 
that  point.  As  early  as  the  4th  of  March,  he  and  the  Neb- 


THE   KANSAS-NEBRASKA   ACT.  201 

raska  Bill  had  been  denounced  from  a  pulpit  in  Chicago,  and 
the  sermon  on  that  occasion  had  been  printed  and  widely  cir 
culated.  That  was  long  before  the  protest  of  the  New  Eng 
land  clergy  had  been  presented  to  or  discussed  in  the  Senate. 

He  had  no  paper  in  Chicago  to  defend  the  bill  or  himself. 
He  was  exposed  to  a  constant  warfare  from  all  quarters,  and 
had  no  means  of  defence.  All  the  Chicago  papers  were  open 
to  condemn,  none  ventured  a  word  in  his  behalf.  It  was  his 
home  ;  it  was  the  great  city  of  the  northwest.  There,  in  pre 
ference  to  all  other  places  he  needed  defence,  yet  there  he  was 
left  alone  to  meet  the  storm  which  falsehood,  private  and  poli 
tical  malice,  disappointed  ambition  and  open  knavery,  were 
fast  gathering  to  meet  him  on  his  return. 

Now  to  return  to  the  bill  before  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Chase  had  the  floor  to  reply  to  Mr.  Douglas,  but  not 
being  prepared  to  go  on  with  his  argument,  he  asked,  and  the 
Senate  granted,  a  postponement  until  the  Friday  following, 
on  that  day  he  made  an  extended  argument.  On  the  7th  of 
February,  the  debate  having  progressed  in  the  meantime,  Mr. 
Douglas  moved  an  amendment  to  the  fourteenth  section  of 
the  bill,  so  as  that  part  of  the  bill  would  read  as  follows  : 

"  That  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  which  are  not  lo 
cally  inapplicable,  shall  have  the  same  force  and  effect  within  the  said  Terri 
tory  of  Nebraska  as  elsewhere  within  the  United  States,  except  the  eighth 
section  of  the  act  preparatory  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union, 
approved  March  6,  1820,  which  being  inconsistent  with  the  principle  of  non 
intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  states  and  territories  as  recog 
nized  by  the  legislation  of  1850,  (commonly  called  the  Compromise  measure) 
is  hereby  declared  inoperative  and  void,  it  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning 
of  this  act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  territory  or  state,  nor  to  exclude 
it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regu 
late  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States." 

This  amendment  was  agreed  to  on  the  15th,  by  a  vote  of — 
yeas  35,  nays  10. 

THE   CELEBRATED    "  CHASE   AMENDMENT." 

On  the  15th  of  February  Mr.  Chase  proposed  to  insert  im 
mediately  after  the  words  above  given,  as  having  been  put 
into  the  bill  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Douglas,  the  following : 

"  Under  which  (the  Constitution  of  the  United  States)  the 
people  of  the  territory,  through  their  appropriate  representa- 

12 


202  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

tives,  may,  if  they  see  fit,  prohibit  the  existence  of  slavery 
therein." 

As  it  has  of  late  become  a  matter  of  doubt  in  the  minds  of 
some  gentlemen  who  voted  for  and  supported  the  Nebraska 
Bill,  as  to  whether  any  one  had  ever  suggested,  while  it  was 
pending,  that  under  its  provisions  the  people  of  the  territo 
ries,  through  their  Legislature,  would  have  the  power  to 
legislate  upon  the  subject  of  slavery ;  and  as  the  action  of  the 
Senate  upon  this  amendment  of  Mr.  Chase  has  been  quoted 
by  all  the  Republican  papers,  by  executive  officers  and 
authority,  and  has  even  been  published  in  official  journals 
over  the  signature  of  an  intelligent  senator  (possibly  by 
others),  as  conclusive  evidence  that  the  Senate  did  not  intend 
to  concede  any  such  power  in  the  Territorial  Legislature,  it  is 
necessary  for  the  sake  of  truth,  if  not  of  justice,  and  not  for 
the  purpose  of  contradicting  the  statement  or  calling  in  ques 
tion  the  veracity  of  any  person,  that  a  somewhat  extended 
notice  of  what  took  place  on  this  amendment  should  be  given. 

For  a  more  clear  understanding  of  what  occurred  it  should 
be  borne  in  mind  that  the  bill  had  been  reported  with  an 
amendment — the  latter  in  the  nature  of  a  substitute  for  the 
former.  The  substitute  was  the  measure  which  the  friends  of 
the  bill  were  maturing.  The  general  question  pending  was 
on  the  adoption  of  the  substitute  in  lieu  of  the  bill.  Pending 
that  question  it  was  in  order  to  amend  the  substitute,  which 
was  of  itself  a  pending  amendment.  Beyond  an  amendment 
to  an  amendment  parliamentary  law  does  not  admit  a  proposal 
to  amend.  Consequently  Mr.  Chase's  motion  was  an  amend 
ment  to  an  amendment,  and  was  not  of  itself  open  to  amend 
ment,  unless  he  voluntarily  modified  his  own  motion. 

In  proposing  his  amendment  Mr.  Chase  thus  stated  its 
"  design :» 

"Now,  I  desire  to  have  the  sense  of  the  Senate  upon  the  question,  whether 
or  not,  under  the  limitations  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  the 
people  of  the  territories  can  prohibit  the  existence  of  slavery." 

Mr.  Pratt,  of  Maryland,  promptly  responded  : 

^  "  The  principle  which  the  senator  from  Ohio  has  announced  as  the  prin 
ciple  of  his  amendment  is,  that  the  question  shah1  be  left  entirely  and  ex 
clusively  to  the  people  of  the  territories  whether  they  will  prohibit  slavery 
or  not.  Now,  for  the  purpose  of  testing  the  sincerity  of  the  senator,  and  for 
tho  purpose  of  deducing  the  principle  in  his  amendment  correctly,  I  propose 


THE   KANSAS-NEBRASKA   ACT.  203 

to  amend  it  by  inserting  after  the  word  '  prohibit '  the  words  '  or  introduce'  • 
so  that  if  my  amendment  be  adopted,  and  the  amendment  of  the  senator  from 
Ohio,  as  so  amended,  be  introduced  as  part  of  the  bill,  the  principle  which  he 
says  he  desires  to  have  tested  here  will  bo  inserted  in  the  bill,  that  the  people 
of  the  territories  shall  have  power  either  to  introduce  or  prohibit  slavery  as 
they  may  think  proper.  I  suppose  the  question  will  be  first  taken  on  the 
amendment  which  I  offer  to  the  amendment." 

Messrs.  Seward  and  Chase  at  once  raised  the  question  that 
as  an  amendment  (Chase's)  to  an  amendment  (the  substitute) 
was  pending,  no  further  amendment  was  in  order ;  and  the 
Chair  necessarily  ruled  Mr.  Pratt's  motion  out  of  order. 
After  some  debate 

Mr.  Shields  said:  If  the  honorable  senator  (Mr.  Chase)  will  permit  me,  I 
will  suggest  to  him,  if  he  wishes  to  test  that  proposition,  to  put  the  converse, 
as  suggested  by  the  honorable  senator  from  Maryland,  and  then  it  will  be  a 
fair  proposition.  Let  the  senator  from  Ohio  accept  the  amendment  of  the 
senator  from  Maryland,  for  the  purpose  of  testing  the  question. 

Mr.  Chase :  I  was  about  to  state  why  I  could  not  accept  the  amendment 
of  the  senator  from  Maryland.  I  have  no  objection  that  the  vote  should  be 
taken  upon  it,  and  it  is  probable  that  it  would  receive  the  sanction  of  a  ma 
jority  here  j  but  with  my  views  of  the  Constitution  I  cannot  vote  for  it.  I 
do  not  believe  that  a  Territorial  Legislature,  though  it  may  have  the  power  to 
protect  the  people  against  slavery,  is  constitutionally  competent  to  intro 
duce  it. 

****** 

Mr.  Badger,  of  North  Carolina,  having  called  for  the  read 
ing  of  the  amendment,  said : 

Mr.  President :  I  have  understood,  I  find  correctly,  the  purport  of  the 
amendment  offered  by  the  honorable  senator  from  Ohio.  The  purpose  of  the 
amendment  and  the  effect  of  the  amendment,  if  adopted  by  the  Senate  and 
standing  as  he  proposes,  are  clear  and  obvious.  The  effect  of  the  amend 
ment  and  the  design  of  the  amendment  are  to  overrule  and  subvert  the  very 
proposition  introduced  into  the  bill  upon  the  motion  of  the  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Territories.  Is  not  that  clear  ?  The  provision  as  it  stands, 
since  the  amendment  has  been  adopted,  is  an  unrestricted  and  unreserved 
reference  to  the  territorial  authorities  or  the  people  themselves  to  determine 
upon  the  question  of  slavery ;  and  therefore  by  the  very  terms,  as  well  as  by 
the  obvious  meaning  and  legal  operation  of  that  amendment,  to  enable  them 
either  to  exclude  or  to  introduce  or  allow  slavery. 

"  If,  therefore,  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  senator  from  Ohio  were 
appended  to  the  bill  in  the  connection  in  which  he  introduces  it,  the  neces 
sary  and  inevitable  effect  of  it  would  be  to  control  and  limit  the  language 
which  the  Senate  has  just  put  into  the  bill,  and  to  give  it  this  construction : 
that  though  Congress  leaves  them  to  regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions 
as  they  please,  yet,  in  regard  to  the  subject  matter  of  slavery,  the  power  is 
confined  to  the  exclusion  or  prohibition  of  it.  I  say  this  is  both  the  legal 
effect  and  the  manifest  design  of  the  amendment.  The  legal  effect  is  obvious 
upon  the  statement.  The  design  is  obvious  upon  the  refusal  of  the  gentle 
man  to  incorporate  in  his  amendment  what  was  suggested  by  my  honorable 
friend  from  Maryland,  the  propriety  and  fairness  of  which  was  instantly  seen 


204  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

by  my  friend  from  Illinois  (Mr.  Shields).  Is  it  proposed  by  the  senator  to 
test  the  question  whether  these  people  shall  expressly  have  authority  to  de 
termine  for  themselves  upon  the  existence  of  this  domestic  relation  ?  If  so, 
and  the  language  just  put  into  the  bill  is  not  sufficiently  explicit,  in  his 
estimation,  is  it  not  beyond  all  question  that  you  should  put  in  the  words 
'  or  introduce  ?'  Under  the  bill,  as  it  stands,  the  people  may  regulate  their 
domestic  relation  as  they  see  fit ;  but,  says  the  amendment  of  the  senator 
from  Ohio,  that  shall  enable  them,  under  the  Constitution,  to  prohibit  slavery. 
"What  is  the  effect  of  that  amendment  but  to  modify,  reduce,  restrain,  and 
bring  down  the  latitude  of  authority  conferred  upon  them  by  the  previous 
language  just  incorporated  into  the  bill."  *  *  * 

"  Now,  sir,  the  true,  direct,  and  manly  course  to  meet  this  question  is  that 
suggested  by  my  honorable  friend  from  Illinois  (Mr.  Shields).  Put  hi  your 
amendment  that  the  people  of  the  territories  shall  be  at  liberty  to  exclude  or 
introduce,  and  if  there  is  anything  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
which  disables  a  territorial  government  from  introducing  slavery,  if  the  hon 
orable  senator  believes  that,  if  he  is  sincere  in  that  opinion,  there  sits  a 
tribunal  below  us  who  will  pass  upon  the  validity  and  constitutionality  of  any 
act  that  we  may  pass. 

"  I  have  no  hesitation,  therefore,  in  saying  that  I  shall  vote  against  the 
amendment  of  the  senator  from  Ohio.  The  clause  as  it  stands  is  ample.  It 
submits  the  whole  authority  to  the  territory  to  determine  for  itself.  That,  in 
my  judgment,  is  the  place  where  it  ought  to  be  put.  If  the  people  of  these 
territories  choose  to  exclude  slavery,  so  far  from  considering  it  as  a  wrong 
done  to  me  or  to  my  constituents,  I  shall  not  complain  of  it.  It  is  their  own 
business." 

The  debate  then  became  general,  and  the  Senate  adjourned 
without  taking  the  question. 

The  debate  upon  the  general  character  of  the  bill  continued 
from  day  to  day  until  the  2d  of  March,  when  the  amendment 
proposed  by  Mr.  Chase  again  was  noticed. 

Mr.  Badger  again  referring  to  it  used  the  following  strong 
language : 

"  The  language  of  the  bill,  as  amended  upon  the  motion  of  the  honorable 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories,  is  full,  complete,  and  ample,  giving 
the  people  of  these  territories,  through  their  governments,  the  unrestricted  and 
unqualified  right  to  decide  upon  all  their  domestic  relations,  slavery  included:  and 
then  the  honorable  senator  from  Ohio,  as  if  he  supposed  that  either  we  were 
so  dull  that  we  could  not  understand,  or  that  the  public  were  so  purblind  that 
they  could  not  see,  proposes  to  add,  as  an  amendment  explanatory  of  the 
previous  language,  that  they  shah1  have  power  to  prohibit  slavery.  He  knows, 
sir,  he  means,  sir,  that  that  language,  so  standing,  shall  have,  as  in  the  court 
below  it  would  have,  the  necessary  effect  of  controlling,  limiting,  and  restrain 
ing  the  former  language,  so  that  the  territories  should  have  no  right  over  this 
subject  but  to  prohibit  slavery.  If  it  does  not  mean  this — if  he  does  not  intend 
this — why  did  he  refuse  to  insert  the  words  which  the  instinctive  candor  and 
openness  of  my  honorable  friend  from  Illinois  (Mr.  Shields)  suggested  '  to  pro 
hibit  or  allow  slavery?'  Sir,  no  member  of  this  body  who  is  in  favor  of  the 
bill  need  be  in  the  least  troubled. 

"  The  senator  from  Ohio  feels  himself  bound,  in  order  to  resist  the  introduc 
tion  of  slavery  into  any  territory,  to  disavow  the  obligation  of  all  compacts,  to 
resist  the  performance  of  every  engagement,  to  disavow  any,  however  solemn, 


THE   KANSAS-^EBEASKA    ACT.  205 

stipulations.  He  can  never  mean  but  one  thing  by  any  amendment  •which  he 
offers  to  this  bill,  and  that  thing  is  mischief  to  the  measure." 

"  Mr.  Cass  said.  *  *  *  "Well,  sir,  the  honorable  senator  from  Ohio  pro 
poses  to  insert  a  provision  to  take  from  the  people  the  power  of  allowing 
slavery." 

"  Mr.  Chase.     No,  sir." 

"  Mr.  Cass.  Certainly ;  that  is  the  effect  of  it.  You  allow  them  the  power 
to  prohibit  slavery  by  your  amendment,  but  not  to  establish  it.  The  original 
provision,  as  it  stands,  gives  them  loth  powers,  subject  to  the  limitations  of  the 
Constitution.  Then  the  effect  of  the  amendment  of  the  honorable  senator  from 
Ohio,  if  adopted,  would  be  to  throw  doubts  upon  the  preceding  provision.  If 
we  give  them  both  powers,  and  then,  afterwards,  in  clearer  language  give  but 
one,  it  is  a  strong  intimation  that  we  destroy  the  effect  of  our  own  previous 
provision.  It  casts  a  doubt  upon  it.  The  true  view,  therefore,  is  to  repeat 
both,  if  repetition  is  necessary." 

"  Mr.  Mason,  of  Virginia,  said :  I  understand  the  senator  from  Ohio  to  say  that 
the  object  of  this  amendment,  and  the  object  of  all  the  other  amendments  which 
he  has  offered  to  the  bill,  was  to  place  the  whole  subject  of  legislation,  in  its 
most  ample  form,  in  the  hands  of  the  people  of  the  territories ;  and  yet  he 
offered,  I  think,  as  an  amendment,  a  proposition  to  authorize  that  people  to 
legislate  for  the  prohibition  of  slavery,  and  refused  the  suggestion  which  came 
from  a  senator  on  this  floor  to  give  the  alternative  to  the  same  people,  in 
their  discretion,  to  legislate  for  the  admission  of  slavery.  Tliat  thing  has  been 
exposed  upon  this  floor  over  and  over  again.1' 

The  discussion  again  wandered  from  the  amendment  to  a 
variety  of  topics,  some  of  them  personal  in  their  nature.  At 
half  past  six  o'clock  p.  m.  the  Senate  proceeded  to  vote  on  the 
amendment,  which  was  rejected  as  follows : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Chase,  Dodge,  of  "Wisconsin,  Fessenden,  Fish,  Foot,  Hamlin, 
Seward,  Smith,  Sumner  and  Wade,  10. 

Nays — Messrs.  Adams,  Atchison,  Badger,  Bell,  Benjamin,  Brodhead,  Brown, 
Butler,  Clay,  of  Alabama,  Clayton,  Dawson,  Dixon,  Dodge,  of  Iowa,  Douglas, 
Evans,  Fitzpatrick,  Grwin,  Houston,  Hunter,  Johnson,  Jones,  of  Iowa,  Jones, 
of  Tennessee,  Mason,  Morton,  Norris,  Pettit,  Pratt,  Eusk,  Sebastian,  Shields, 
Slidell,  Stuart,  Toucey,  "Walker,  Weller,  and  Williams,  36. 

This  is  the  history  of  the  origin,  progress,  and  fate  of  the 
Chase  amendment.  It  proposed  to  allow  the  people  of  the 
territories  to  "  prohibit"  slavery,  but  denied  to  them  the  power 
to  "  introduce."  It  was,  in  effect,  a  restriction  of  the  powers 
of  the  Legislature  to  a  prohibition,  when  the  object  of  the 
bill  was  to  leave  the  Legislature  free  and  unrestricted  in  the 
exercise  of  all  constitutional  legislation  to  prohibit  or  introduce. 
As  General  Cass  said,  it  was  a  proposition  to  take  from  the 
Legislature  the  power  to  admit  slavery 

This  amendment  has  lately  been  drawn  from  the  records, 
and  paraded  before  the  country  as  conclusive  testimony  that 
the  Senate,  including  Mr.  Douglas,  in  framing  the  Kansas- 


206  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

Nebraska  Act,  were  so  opposed  to  any  recognition  of  the 
power  of  the  Territorial  Legislature  to  prohibit  slavery,  that  a 
direct  proposition  to  that  effect  was  voted  clown  by  a  majority 
of  nearly  four  to  one.  When  the  candid  reader  remembers 
that  the  searcher  after  the  history  of  that  amendment  had  to 
read  the  speeches  of  its  mover,  and  of  Messrs.  Badger  and 
Cass,  as  to  its  purpose,  its  design  and  its  effect,  he  will  hardly 
credit  the  statement  that  a  learned  senator,  who  was  a  mem 
ber  of  the  Senate  in  1854  when  the  bill  passed,  has  had  the 
courage  in  1859  to  present  the  amendment,  and  the  vote  re 
jecting  it,  as  direct  and  positive  evidence  that  the  Senate,  by 
a  vote  of  thirty-six  to  ten,  decided  that  the  Territorial  Legisla 
ture  should  not  be  permitted  to  legislate  to  the  exclusion  of 
slavery. 

That  the  readers  of  this  book  may  judge  for  themselves  how 
universal  was  the  "  unsoundness"  of  senators  upon  the  subject 
which  Dr.  Gwin  has  recently  made  his  specialty,  some  extracts 
have  been  made  from  speeches  on  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill. 
Before  giving  these  extracts,  however,  it  should  be  stated  that 
the  only  object  sought  to  be  established  by  quoting  them  is — 
that  when  the  bill  was  under  consideration  it  was  conceded  by 
all  its  friends,  that  unless  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
rendered  such  legislation  void,  the  legislatures  of  the  territo 
ries  were,  by  the  express  terms  of  the  bill,  authorized  to  legis 
late  for  the  introduction,  prohibition,  exclusion,  protection  and 
encouragement  of  African  slavery  within  their  territorial  limits. 
The  members  of  the  Senate  were  divided  into  three  classes 
upon  the  question  of  power,  viz. : 

1.  Those  who  denied  the  power  of  Congress  to  legislate  to 
extend  slavery,  but  claimed  that  Congress  had  the  power  to 
prohibit ;  and  that  the  Territorial  Legislature,  deriving  all  its 
powers  from  Congress,  could  not  legislate  except  to  prohibit 
slavery.     This  class  was  represented  by  Mr.  Chase. 

2.  Those  who  denied  the  power  of  Congress  to  legislate  to 
prohibit  slavery,  but  claimed  that  Congress  had  the  power, 
and  should,  when  necessary,  legislate  for  the  protection  of 
slave  property,  which,  being  recognized  by  the  Constitution, 
must  under  all  just  considerations  of  the  equality  of  the  States, 
be  admissible  to  the  territories — the  common  property  of  all 
the  States ;  and  that  the  Legislature  of  the  Territory,  being  the 
creature  of  Congress,  could  not  exercise  powers  or  authority 


THE   KANSAS-NEBEASKA   ACT.  207 

greater  than  those  possessed  by  the  creator.    This  class  was 
represented  by  Mr.  Brown,  of  Mississippi. 

3.  Those  who,  whether  denying  or  admitting  the  power  of 
Congress  to  legislate  for  the  admission,  extension,  or  prohibi 
tion  of  slavery  in  the  territories,  claimed  for  the  people  of  the 
territories  the  power  and  the  right,  acting  through  their  Legis 
latures,  to  admit  or  exclude,  protect  or  prohibit  African 
slavery.  Of  this  class  was  Messrs.  Cass,  Douglas,  and,  as  was 
understood,  all  the  Northern  supporters  of  the  bill,  Mr.  Bad 
ger,  and  other  Whigs  from  the  South.  Messrs  Butler  and 
Hunter,  from  whose  speeches  quotations  are  given  below,  both 
denied  the  power  of  Congress  or  the  Territorial  Legislature  to 
prohibit  slavery,  but  both  conceded  that  the  bill  did  give,  and 
that  it  was  intended  to  give,  that  power,  should  its  exercise  be 
consistent  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Con 
gress  by  the  act  did  not  withhold  or  deny  the  power ;  on  the 
contrary,  these  gentlemen  as  well  as  all  other  supporters  of  the 
bill  who  made  speeches,  conceded  that  unless  the  legislation 
was  unconstitutional,  it  was  the  intent  and  effect  of  the  bill  to 
grant,  recognize  and  admit  the  right  of  the  Legislature  to  ex 
clude  or  admit  slavery. 

ME.   WELLEE,    OF    CALIFORNIA. 

But,  sir,  if  this  be  a  question  between  slavery  and  freedom,  then  the 
friends  of  this  measure  hold  the  freedom  side  of  the  question.  "We  pro 
pose  that  the  people,  the  original  source  of  all  power,  those  who  spoke  this 
government  into  existence,  and  whose  agents  we  are,  shall  be  allowed  to 
decide  for  themselves  what  local  institutions  shall  exist  among  them.  On 
the  other  hand  the  opponents  of  the  measure  advocate  slavery.  They  con 
tend  that  the  American  people  shall  not  exercise  this  right ;  that  their 
minds  shall  be  enslaved,  that  their  hands  shall  be  tied  up,  and  they  pre 
vented  from  a  free  decision  whether  slavery  shah1  exist  there  or  not.  "We 
occupy  the  broad  ground  of  freedom.  Wo  have  an  abiding  confidence  in 
the  honesty  and  in  the  intelligence  of  the  people.  "We  are  not  afraid  to 
trust  them  with  the  decision  of  this  question.  How  stands  it  with  you  ?  I 
had  supposed  that  you  were  the  agents  and  the  representatives  of  the 
people,  but  it  seems  that  the  servant  has  become  wiser  than  the  master. 
You  who  are  invested  with  political  power  are  claiming  now  that  you  are 
better  judges  of  what  sort  of  government  the  people  should  have  than  the 
people  themselves.  la  this  so  ?  Is  there  that  vast  amount  of  intelligence 
and  of  patriotism  in  the  American  Congress  which  makes  us  far  better 
judges  of  what  the  people  should  have  than  the  people  themselves?^  Our 
whole  system  is  based  upon  the  principle  that  man  is  capable  of  self- 
government.  The  moment  you  violate  this  principle,  that  moment  you 
transcend  your  authority  and  destroy  the  vital  element  of  the  republic. 

We  propose  that  this  (slavery),  like  all  other  questions,  shall  be  left  to 
the  free  decision  of  the  people.  The  opponents  of  the  measure  concede  to 


208  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

the  people  the  right,  when  they  form  a  State  constitution,  to  decide  for 
themselves  whether  slavery  shall  exist  or  not ;  but  in  the  mean  time,  while 
it  is  a  territory,  they  say  slavery  ought  to  be  excluded.  This  is  like  tying  a 
man's  hands  and  legs,  and  telling  him  to  go  where  he  pleases. 

FROM   THE   SAME   SPEECH    OF   ME.    WELLEE. 

One  of  these  senators  from  Ohio  (Mr.  "Wade)  went  so  far  as  to  utter  this 
sentiment : 

"  Sir,  in  the  days  of  the  revolution  Major  Andre  was  hung  by  the  neck 
until  he  was  dead  for  accepting  a  proposition  not  more  base  than  this, 
which  is  a  gross  betrayal  of  the  rights  of  the  whole  North." 

What  an  Egyptian  darkness  must  have  pervaded  the  mind  of  that  Sena 
tor  before  he  could  have  arrived  at  that  conclusion !  What  sad  ravages  the 
foul  spirit  of  fanaticism  must  have  made  upon  his  heart  before  he  could  have 
uttered  that  sentiment  I  The  simple  proposition  to  leave  the  people  of 
Kansas  and  Nebraska  free  and  untrammeled  to  decide  on  all  their  local  in 
stitutions  for  themselves  is,  in  his  judgment,  a  more  dishonorable  proposi 
tion  than  that  for  which  Major  Andre  was  hung !  I  pray  that  God  may  en 
lighten  the  benighted  mind  of  that  senator  and  soften  his  heart,  and  that  ere 
long  he  will  be  restored  to  a  proper  degree  of  judgment  and  reason — I  had 
almost  said  decency. 

ME.   TOUCEY,    OF   C03STNECTICUT. 

Sir,  I  find  no  difficulty  with  regard  to  the  territorial  governments  which 
we  have  had.  They  are  assented  to  by  the  people  who  live  under  them, 
are  adopted  by  the  people,  and  put  in  operation  by  the  people ;  and  when 
the  assent  of  the  people  and  the  assent  of  Congress  both  combine  to  uphold 
a  government  de  facto,  that  government  is  in  the  possession  of  power,  and 
it  would  be  very  difficult  to  question  its '  practical  validity.  And  as  the 
people  participate  in  territorial  legislation,  and,  in  fact,  the  laws  originate 
with  them,  are  proposed  and  adopted  by  them,  these  laws  have  not  only  the 
presumed  assent  of  the  people,  but  their  express  assent  also ;  and  having  the 
implied  sanction  of  Congress,  if  they  are  consistent  with  the  Constitution, 
there  seems  to  be  no  element  wanting  to  render  them  effective  to  all  intents 
and  purposes  whatsoever.  But  I  mean  to  say  that  in  the  exercise  of  the 
power  over  the  territories,  acquired  by  the  treaty -making  power,  you  are 
bound  to  exercise  that  power  in  conformity  with  the  principles  of  the  Consti 
tution  ;  and  if  you  do  otherwise,  although  the  law  may  not  reach  it,  and 
courts  of  justice  may  not  reach  it,  yet  you  are  acting  unconstitutionally  j  and 
if  we  knowingly  and  willingly  violate  the  principles  of  government  in  exer 
cising  the  necessary  power  that  arises  from  the  acquisition  of  territory,  we  vio 
late  the  obligation  that  is  upon  us  to  support  the  Constitution.  When,  there 
fore,  this  principle  of  non-interference  applies  to  all  the  states — applies  to 
every  state  that  has  come  or  will  come  into  the  Union — when  in  a  very  short 
period  sovereign  states  will  occupy  every  foot  of  territory  within  the  limits  of 
the  United  States,  and  this  principle  will  become  universal,  are  we  justified, 
are  we  acting  in  the  true  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  are  we  not  violating  the 
obligations  upon  us,  when  we  trample  this  principle  under  foot,  and  under 
take  to  control  the  domestic  relations  of  a  people  who  are,  with  our  consent, 
in  the  possession  of  legislative  power,  and  admitted  by  us  to  be  capable  of 
exercising  it  ? 

*  *  *  * 

Why  should  we  undertake  in  this  government  here  to  exercise  this  power 
of  dictating  to  them  ? 


THE   KANSAS-NEBRASKA   ACT.  209 

What  right  have  we,  in  these  Atlantic  States,  over  the  people  of  the  re 
mote  territories  to  dictate  law  to  them  ?  They  are  American  citizens.  They 
have  gone  into  these  territories  with  the  full  rights  of  American  citizens. 
Why  should  we  seek  to  exercise  this  arbitrary  power  over  them?  Why 
should  we  assume  on  our  part  to  govern  them  at  our  will  and  pleasure  ?  It 
would  be  as  arbitrary  and  despotic  power  as  exists  anywhere  in  the  civilized 
or  uncivilized  world.  It  will  be  the  same  arbitrary  power  which  the  parlia 
ment  of  Great  Britain  undertook  to  exercise  over  the  American  colonies  when 
they  resisted  and  revolted.  It  will  be  the  despotism  practiced  by  the  worst 
governments  over  the  most  abject  and  down-trodden  people  of  Europe,  Asia, 
and  Africa.  Having  no  foundation  in  the  consent  of  the  people  who  are 
made  its  slaves,  it  will  be  an  unmixed  evil  in  our  system,  pregnant  with  the 
worst  consequences  of  tyranny,  and  worse  than  anarchy  in  its  worst  form. 

And  am  I  to  be  called  upon  here  to  participate  in  exercising  any  such 
power  ?  I  detest  it.  I  will  never  participate  in  it.  I  will  go  to  the  people 
and  I  will  ask  them  if  they  are  willing  to  be  instrumental  in  the  exercise  of 
despotic  power  over  their  fellow-citizens ;  because,  forsooth,  their  enterprise 
has  borne  them  on  to  the  region  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  ?  I  will  ask  if 
these  people  have  ceased  to  be  Americans ;  if  they  have  become  incapable  of 
exercising  the  right  of  self-government,  because  they  have  encountered  the 
hardships  of  the  wilderness  to  become  the  founders  of  new  states ;  and  if 
they  have  themselves  so  soon  forgotten  the  first  principles  of  liberty,  the  les 
sons  of  the  Revolution,  and  the  lessons  of  the  revolutionary  fathers,  that  they 
are  willing  to  wield  this  despotic  power  over  their  children.  Sir,  I  know 
what  the  popular  response  will  be.  Sir,  I  know  what  it  will  be.  The  people 
of  this  country  will  be  unanimous — ultimately  unanimous.  Their  "  sober 
second  thought"  will  be  everywhere;  let  the  people  rule;  let  them  govern 
themselves  in  their  own  way  when  in  the  possession  of  legislative  power ;  let  this 
federal  government,  in  wielding  the  power  over  what  is  necessary  over  the 
territories,  conform  it  to  the  principles  upon  which  the  Constitution  is 
founded. 

ME.    HUNTER,    OP   VIRGINIA, 

after   detailing  the  events  attending  the  legislation  in  1850, 
said: 

But  the  South  was  voted  down,  and  the  whole  question  was  so  settled 
that,  practically,  there  is  not  one  square  inch  of  that  territory  which  the  South 
can  ever  settle  or  occupy ;  and,  in  exchange  for  it,  the  South  got,  first,  the 
declaration  on  the  part  of  the  leading  Northern  friends  of  that  Compromise — a 
declaration  which  seems  to  have  been  sustained  by  the  legislation  of  the  coun 
try — that  it  was  unconstitutional  to  pass  any  law  that  should  prohibit  the  in 
troduction  of  slavery  into  the  unoccupied  territories  of  the  United  States ;  and 
secondly,  the  admission  of  the  principle  that  the  true  mode  of  organizing  that 
unoccupied  territory  is  to  give  the  people  of  the  territory  power  to  legislate 
over  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation  which  are  consistent  with  the  Constitu 
tion.  That  was  all  the  South  received  in  exchange  for  its  just  share  of  that 
vast  territory ;  and  although  I  believe  that  it  was  the  almost  universal  senti 
ment  of  the  South  that  they  had  been  wronged  in  this  adjustment,  yet  they 
acquiesced  and  submitted. 

It  is  then  surprising  that  when  we  come  to  organize  the  territorial  govern 
ment  of  this  country,  where  slavery  is  prohibited  by  preceding  legislative  re 
striction,  the  South  should  say,  "  Gentlemen,  you  said  it  was  unconstitutional 
to  pass  a  legislative  prohibition.  Here  is  one ;  we  ask  you  to  remove  it.  You 


210  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

said  that  the  true  way  to  constitute  a  territorial  government  was  to  give  to 
the  people  of  that  territory  power  to  legislate  upon  all  rightful  subjects  of 
legislation  consistently  with  the  Constitution.  "We  ask  you  to  give  that  power 
to  the  people  in  these  territories  in  the  precise  words  contained  in  the  bill  for 
the  territorial  organization  of  Utah."  Was  it  not  then  an  inevitable  conse 
quence  of  the  course  of  events  I  have  depicted  that  the  South  should  make 
this  request  ?  Is  it  not  a  matter  of  justice,  is  it  not  a  matter  of  constitutional 
right,  that  the  North  should  accord  it  ? 

Subsequently,  Mr.  Stuart,  of  Michigan,  stated  that  senators 
from  the  South  had  denied  that  under  the  language  of  the 
bill  the  Legislature  of  the  Territory  would  have  the  same  au 
thority  over  slavery  as  over  any  other  subject — that  under  the 
words  of  the  bill  the  Legislature  was  restrained  in  its  action 
upon  the  subject  of  slavery.  He  referred  to  Mr.  Hunter  as 
one  of  those  who  had  thus  questioned  the  extent  and  oper 
ation  of  the  words  of  the  bill.  Mr.  Hunter  thus  clearly  and 
explicitly  responded : 

Mr.  Hunter :  If  the  senator  will  allow  me,  I  will  state  that  I  only  desired 
it  because  I  thought  the  Constitution  prohibits  them  from  so  legislating.  I 
believe  the  bill,  as  it  now  stands,  gives  the  people  of  the  territories  all  the 
power  that  any  bill  could  give  them,  unless  there  is  some  power  beyond  the 
Constitution  which  they  may  exercise.  That  was  the  opinion  which  I  ex 
pressed — that  they  would  be  restricted  by  the  Constitution,  and  I  presume 
it  will  restrict  them  whether  we  mention  it  or  not. 

ME.   CASS,   OF  MICHIGAN. 

"  The  power  of  the  people  to  legislate  for  themselves  upon 
all  these  questions  of  domestic  policy  is  the  inevitable  result 
of  the  preceding  principles  and  of  American  institutions.  If 
Congress  have  no  jurisdiction  over  the  subject,  the  people 
must  have  it,  or  the  most  important  concerns  of  social  and  of 
civil  life  would  be  left  without  security  or  protection.  No  one 
has  ever  questioned  their  just  claim  to  regulate,  by  their  im 
mediate  representatives,  the  various  questions  connected  with 
their  civil  and  social  relations,  except  this  relation  of  master 
and  servant,  and  this  exception  cannot  stand  the  test  of  any 
reasonable  scrutiny.  I  am  aware  of  the  objections  which  have 
been  urged  against  the  existence  of  this  right  of  self-govern 
ment  founded  on  the  connection  of  the  people  of  the  terri 
tories  with  the  government  of  the  United  States,  and  I  have 
been  amazed  at  the  subtle  arguments,  politico-metaphysical 
indeed,  which  have  been  presented  against  the  enjoyment  of 
one  of  the  most  sacred  rights  which  God  has  given  to  man. 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA   ACT.  211 

The  inseparable  union  between  representation  and  the  regula 
tion  of  the  domestic  affairs  of  a  community,  including  taxa 
tion,  is  one  of  the  cardinal  principles  of  American  political 
faith  laid  down  in  our  state  papers,  taught  in  our  schools,  and 
triumphantly  asserted  and  defended  on  the  battle-field — a 
principle  which  the  Continental  Congress,  in  1774,  declared  in 
these  words: 

"  The  English  colonists  are  entitled  to  a  free  and  exclusive  power  of  legis 
lation  in  their  several  provincial  Legislatures,  where  their  right  of  representa- 
can  alone  be  preserved  in  all  cases  of  taxation  and  internal  policy,  etc.  And 
strange  is  it,  in  the  vacillation  of  human  opinions,  that  from  defenders  we  are 
urged  to  become  offenders,  and,  with  the  practice,  to  adopt  the  principle  of 
Lord  North  in  this  crusade  against  human  rights.  For  there  is  scarcely  an 
argument  which  can  be  urged  against  this  claim  of  local  legislation  which  the 
British  Ministry  did  not  urge  against  the  demands  of  our  fathers  to  be  allowed 
to  legislate  on  themselves.  We  have  been  told  with  duo  gravity,  and,  I  have 
no  doubt,  with  due  sincerity,  that  the  United  States  are  the  'Sovereign;'  and 
we  have  been  asked,  '  and  how  can  sovereignty,  the  ultimate  and  supreme 
power  of  the  state,  be  divided  ?'  Sovereignty  indeed !  and  who  can  find  the 
word  in  the  Constitution,  or  who  can  deduce  any  power  from  its  use  ?  It  is 
a,  process  of  constructive  authority  which  cannot  be  too  severely  reprobated, 
at  war,  as  it  is,  with  the  fundamental  basis  of  the  confederation.  Once  es 
tablish  its  operation  as  the  foundation  of  Congressional  action,  and  other  and 
nearer  rights  than  those  of  distant,  feeble  communities,  would  soon  be  pros 
trated  before  it." 

******** 

"  But,  sir,  whether  the  government  of  the  United  States  is  sovereign  or 
subordinate,  supreme  or  inferior,  confederated  or  consolidated — and  consolida 
ted  it  will  become,  if  some  of  these  doctrines  prevail — are  questions  not  worth 
a  moment's  consideration  in  any  inquiry  into  its  legitimate  power.  Neither 
these  nor  any  other  attributes  can  confer  upon  it  the  least  jurisdiction.  To  find 
what  that  is,  we  must  go  to  the  Constitution — to  the  law  and  the  testimony. 
And  all  these  useless,  and  some  of  them  unintelligible  abstractions,  were 
urged  as  reasons  why  the  internal  affairs  of  American  citizens,  called  freemen, 
should  be  controlled  by  a  distant  legislature,  not  one  member  of  which  enti 
tled  to  vote  is  elected  by,  or  is  responsible  to  them. 

"  His  Majesty  in  Parliament,  said  the  Government  of  George  III.,  has  the 
right,  by  statute,  to  bind  the  colonies  in  all  cases  whatsoever.  It  took  Lord 
North  and  his  master  George  III.  seven  years  to  learn  the  falsehood  of  this 
assumption,  and  the  lesson  cost  them  an  empire.  While  history  is  the  record 
of  human  actions,  it  is  the  reiteration  of  human  motives  and  pretensions. 
And  now  before  all  the  men  of  the  generation  which  successfully  resisted  this 
edict  of  tyranny  have  passed  away,  we  are  called  upon  practically  to  declare 
that  our  majesty,  this  government  in  Congress,  has  the  right  by  statute  to 
bind  the  territories  in  all  cases  whatsoever,  or,  according  to  the  new  version, 
to  sell  the  people  into  slavery.  This  is  good  doctrine  over  the  water  at  Ber 
lin,  and  Vienna,  and  at  Petersburgh,  but  I  hope  not  upon  the  "Wabash,  though 
we  are  told  that  God  has  spared  a  precious  life  upon  its  fertile  banks  in  order 
to  announce  and  promulgate  it.  The  ways  of  Providence  are  often  dark  to  us 
blind  mortals,  but  seldom  darker  than  in  this  case,  whether  we  consider  the 
messenger  or  the  message,  the  prophet  or  the  prophecy.  He  without  whose 
knowledge  no  sparrow  falls  to  the  ground,  sometimes  selects  strange  instru 
ments,  according  to  our  comprehension,  to  accomplish  his  wise  designs.  It 


212  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

was  so  in  the  days  of  Balaam,  and  if  a  similar  wonder  has  just  occurred  in  OUT 
days  and  in  our  midst,  nothing  is  left  for  us  but  to  bow  and  believe.  But 
whatever  may  be  the  nature  of  this  mission,  the  doctrine  itself  would  sound 
better  within  sight  of  the  tomb  of  Achilles  than  within  sight  of  the  tomb  of 
Washington.  But  even  under  the  shadow  of  Islamism,  and  within  the  hear 
ing  of  the  muezzin  who  calls  the  faithful  to  prayer,  it  would  not  be  considered 
quite  orthodox  in  this  day  of  Turkish  reform. 

"And  why  should  not  the  people  of  the  territories  legislate  for  themselves  ? 
The  senator  from  New  York  intimates  that  they  do  not  know  enough,  and 
can  not  safely  be  trusted  with  this  incident  of  self-government — the  power  to 
regulate  the  condition  of  master  and  servant — though  he  is  willing  to  trust 
them  with  all  the  powers  of  life  and  death  which  depend  upon  the  political 
action  of  a  country — with  complete  authority  over  whites,  but  a  limited  one 
over  blacks.  This  plea  of  the  incompetency  of  the  people  to  manage  their 
own  concerns  is  the  old  plea  of  tyranny  all  the  world  over,  in  the  contest  be 
tween  power  and  freedom ;  and  it  never  was  better  rebuked  than  by  the 
author  of  the  Declaration  of  Independance,  when  he  said  '  if  the  peopel  are 
not  fit  to  govern  themselves,  have  they  found  angels,  in  the  shape  of  men,  to 
govern  them?' 

"  "Well,  sir,  the  senator  from  New  York  has  made  the  discovery,  which 
escaped  the  penetration  of  this  Patriarch  of  the  Democratic  faith,  and  has 
found  angels  in  the  shape  of  Congressmen  to  govern  the  territories.  I  do  not 
believe  in  this  new  phase  of  despotism. — making  slaves  of  white  communities." 

At  a  later  stage  of  the  bill,  while  the  amendment  proposed 
by  Mr.  Clayton,  to  restrict  the  right  of  suffrage  to  citizens, 
was  under  consideration, 

Mr.  Atchison,  of  Missouri,  said : 

"Yery  well.  We  will  have  no  difference  in  relation  to  that  matter;  but 
the  objection  I  have  is,  that  foreigners,  men  who  are  not  citizens,  men  who 
may  never  become  citizens,  will  mould  and  form  the  institutions  in  these  terri 
tories,  under  the  provision  of  the  bill  as  it  stands,  unless  we  concur  in  the 
amendment. 

"  The  first  legislature  may  decide  the  question  of  slavery  forever  in  these  terri- 
tories,  and  decide  as  to  the  right  of  the  people  of  one-half  of  the  States  of  this 
Union  to  go  there  or  not.  It  is  because  they  have  the  right  of  suffrage,  and 
the  right  to  hold  office  in  these  territories,  when  their  institutions  are  first 
formed  and  first  moulded,  that  constitutes  my  chief  and  principle  objection. 
If  the  senator  would  alter  and  amend  his  proposition  so  that,  in  the  year  1857 
or  1858,  persons  who  have  declared  their  intention  to  become  citizens  may 
exercise  the  right  of  suffrage  and  hold  office,  I  will  waive  my  objection." 

THE   BADGER   AMENDMENT. 

The  Chase  amendment  having  been  rejected,  Mr.  Badger 
then  submitted  his  amendment,  which  now  forms  part  of  the 
14th  section  of  the  bill,  as  follows  : 

"  Provided,  That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  construed  to  revive  or 
put  in  force  any  law  or  regulation  which  may  have  existed  prior  to  the  act 
of  the  6th  of  March,  1820,  either  protecting,  establishing,  prohibiting,  or 
abolishing  slavery." 


THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  ACT.  213 

This  was  agreed  to,  yeas  35,  nays  6 — five  senators  from 
the  South  and  Dodge,  of  Wisconsin,  voting  against  it. 

Mr.  Douglas  then  moved  to  strike  out  the  provision  giving 
the  governor  the  power  of  absolute  veto,  and  inserting  a 
clause  conferring  a  limited  one  ;  also  to  strike  out  the  clause 
declaring  that  the  acts  of  the  Territorial  Legislature  should 
be  submitted  to  Congress,  and  if  disapproved  should  be  null 
and  void.  These  amendments,  designed  to  give  greater  free 
dom  to  the  Legislatures  of  the  Territories,  were  adopted  with 
out  a  division. 

THE   CLAYTON   AMENDMENT. 

The  bill  as  it  stood  admitted  to  the  right  of  voting  all 
citizens 

"  And  those  who  shall  have  declared,  on  oath,  their  intentions  to  become 
such,  and  shall  have  taken  an  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  and  the  provisions  of  this  act." 

Mr.  Clayton,  of  Delaware,  moved  to  strike  out  these  words, 
so  as  to  deprive  all  persons  not  fully  naturalized  of  the  privi 
lege  of  voting.  A  brief  debate  ensued,  and  the  amendment 
was  agreed  to,  yeas  23,  nays  21 — Mr.  Douglas  and  all  the 
northern  friends  of  the  bill,  except  one,  voting  in  the  nega 
tive. 

After  making  some  further  amendments  and  rejecting  seve 
ral  proposed  by  Mr.  Chase,  the  question  was  taken  on  agree 
ing  with  the  substitute,  and  agreed  to ;  the  bill  was  then  re 
ported  to  the  Senate,  and  all  the  amendments  made  in 
Committee  of  the  Whole  were  concurred  in  without  a  count, 
except  that  known  as  the  Clayton  amendment ;  upon  that, 
after  debate,  the  question  was  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  and 
again  decided  in  the  affirmative,  yeas  22,  nays  20.  The  bill 
was  then  ordered  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading,  yeas 
29,  nays  12. 

On  the  next  day,  March  3d,  the  question  pending  was, 
Shall  this  bill  pass  ?  The  bill  was  taken  up  at  an  early  hour. 
Mr.  Bell,  of  Tennessee,  addressed  the  Senate,  followed  by 
Dawson,  of  Georgia,  Norris,  of  New  Hampshire,  Wade,  of 
Ohio,  Mr  Toucey,  Mr.  Fessenden,  Mr.  Weller,  and  incident 
ally  by  others,  and  at  nearly  midnight  Mr.  Douglas  obtained 
the  floor.  After  some  further  time  in  discussing  as  to  further 


214  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

speaking  after  he  closed,  he  proceeded  in  a  speech,  which  was 
delivered  even  at  that  hour  to  crowded  galleries,  and  to  a 
Senate  fully  aroused  and  gratified  by  the  force  of  his  argu 
ment,  the  impetuosity  of  his  invective,  and  the  clearness  and 
ability  with  which  he  defended  himself  and  the  great  mea 
sure.  This  speech,  under  all  the  circumstances,  was  one  of 
the  most  remarkable  ever  delivered.  During  the  preceding 
six  weeks  his  name  had  been  coupled  with  every  term  of  re 
proach  that  malignity  could  invent.  He  had  been  hung  and 
burnt  in  effigy  in  several  places  in  the  New  England  and 
other  states.  Every  description  of  obloquy  had  been  heaped 
upon  him.  He  had  been  selected  as  the  victim  to  be  sacri 
ficed  by  popular  frenzy.  Instead  of  being  dismayed  or  cast 
down  by  the  storm  which  had  been  so  pitilessly  directed 
against  him,  he  on  that  memorable  night  seemed  to  have  in 
creased  in  all  those  unyielding  persevering  qualities  which 
have  been  so  severely  tested,  and  which  have  never  failed  to 
carry  him  through  all  the  momentous  difficulties  he  has  had  to 
encounter.  The  speech  will  be  found  in  extenso  at  the  close 
of  this  chapter. 

Mr.  Houston  followed,  and  about  5  o'clock,  A.  M.,  the  Sen 
ate  proceeded  to  vote,  and  the  bill  passed. 

Teas — Adams,  Miss. ;  Atchison,  Mo. ;  Badger,  N.  C. ;  Bayard,  Del. ;  Ben 
jamin,  La.;  Brodhead,  Pa. :  Brown,  Miss. ;  Butler,  S.  C. ;  Cass,  Mich. ;  Clay, 
Ala. ;  Dawson,  Geo. ;  Dixon,  Ky. ;  Dodge,  Iowa ;  Douglas,  111. ;  Evans,  S.  C. ; 
Fitzpatrick,  Ala. ;  Geyer,  Mo. ;  Gwin,  Cal. ;  Hunter,  Va. ;  Johnson,  Ark.  ; 
Jones,  Iowa ;  Jones,  Tenn. ;  Mason,  Ya. ;  Morton,  Fla. ;  Norris,  K  H. ; 
Pettit,  Ind. ;  Pratt,  Md. ;  Rusk,  Tex.;  Sebastian,  Ark.;  Shields,  111. ;  Sli- 
dell,  La. ;  Stuart,  Mich. ;  Thompson,  Ky. ;  Thomson,  N.  J. ;  Toucey,  Conn. ; 
Weller,  Cal.;  Williams,  N.  H.— Total,  37. 

Nays — Bell,  Tenn.;  Chase,  Ohio;  Dodge,  Wis.  ;  Fessenden,  Me.;  Fish, 
N.  Y. ;  Foot,  Vt. ;  Hamlin,  Me. ;  Houston,  Tex.  ;  James,  R.  I. ;  Seward, 
N,  Y. ;  Smith,  Conn. ;  Sumner,  Mass.  ;  Wade,  Ohio ;  Walker,  Wis. — 
Total,  14. 

THE   NEBKASKA   BILL   IN   THE   HOUSE. 

On  the  7th  of  March  the  Senate  bill  was  received  in  the 
House  of  Representatives. 

On  the  31st  of  January  preceding,  Mr.  Richardson,  of  Ill 
inois,  had  reported  "  a  bill  to  organize  the  Territories  of  Neb 
raska  and  Kansas" — being  similar  in  all  respects  to  the  mea 
sure  then  pending  before  the  Senate,  as  reported  by  Mr 


THE   KANSAS-NEBKASKA   ACT.  215 

Douglas,  and  it  was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
on  the  State  of  the  Union. 

Under  the  rules  of  the  house,  members  were  permitted  to 
discuss  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  regardless  of  the  immedi 
ate  subject  under  consideration,  almost  any  topic  that  might 
suit  their  taste  or  their  interests.  Hence,  the  whole  merits  of 
the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill — the  house  as  well  as  the  Sen 
ate  bill — were  debated  for  a  long  time  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  without  either  bill  being  strictly  before  the  house. 

On  the  21st  of  March  the  Senate  bill,  by  a  vote  of  yeas  110 
to  nays  95,  was  sent  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole ;  the 
motion,  which  was  considered  by  the  friends  of  the  bill  as  hos 
tile  to  its  success,  was  made  by  Mr.  Cutting,  of  New  York, 
and  out  of  it  subsequently  grew  a  controversy  between  that 
gentleman  and  Mr.  Breckinridge,  of  Kentucky,  that  for  a 
time  gave  indications  of  a  personal  conflict. 

Thus  matters  stood  until  the  8th  of  May,  when  Mr.  Richard 
son  moved  that  the  house  resolve  itself  into  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  avowing  his  purpose,  when  in  committee,  to  move  to 
lay  aside  all  other  bills  on  the  calendar,  and  take  up  the 
house  Nebraska  Bill.  After  considerable  maneuvering  the 
house  was  brought  to  a  vote  upon  the  motion,  which  was 
agreed  to — yeas  109,  nays  88.  The  Speaker  having  vacated 
the  chair,  Mr.  Olds  (of  Ohio)  was  called  to  preside  over  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole.  Mr.  Richardson  then  moved  to 
lay  aside  the  first  bill  on  the  calendar,  and  the  motion  was 
agreed  to — ayes  103,  nays  82.  He  then  moved  to  lay  aside 
the  next  bill,  and  repeated  the  motion  until  the  Nebraska  Bill 
was  reached.  That  bill  being  taken  up  he  moved  to  amend  it 
by  striking  out  all  after  the  enacting  clause,  and  inserting  a 
substitute  in  the  exact  words  of  the  bill  passed  by  the  Senate, 
restoring  the  words  which  had  been  stricken  out  of  that  bill 
on  motion  of  Mr.  Clayton. 

On  Thursday,  May  llth,  the  house  met  at  12  o'clock,  M. 
Mr.  Richardson  submitted  the  usual  motion  for  closing  debate 
in  committee  upon  the  Nebraska  Bill,  whereupon  the  oppo 
nents  of  the  bill  resorted  to  the  routine  of  motions  for  adjourn 
ment,  call  of  the  house,  lay  upon  the  table,  etc.,  etc.  The 
struggle  was  a  protracted  one,  continuing  until  a  few  minutes 
before  12  o'clock  on  Friday  (12th)  night,  when,  on  motion  of 


216  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

Mr.  Richardson,  the  house  adjourned,  after  a  continuous  ses 
sion  of  thirty-six  hours.  On  Saturday,  13th,  the  business  was 
renewed,  but  after  a  few  hours  a  motion  to  adjourn  prevailed. 
On  Monday,  15th,  the  house  resumed  the  consideration  of 
the  motion ;  but  as  by  the  rules  any  motion  to  suspend  the 
rules  could  take  priority  of  the  pending  proposition,  Mr. 
Richardson,  to  avoid  having  his  motion  crowded  out  by  prop 
ositions  of  that  character,  modified  his  motion,  or,  in  fact, 
moved  to  suspend  the  rules,  to  enable  him  to  offer  the  follow 
ing  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  debate  on  House  Bill  No.  236,  to  organize  the  territories  of 
Nebraska  and  Kansas,  shall  terminate  at  12  o'clock,  Saturday,  20th  hist.,  and 
that  the  consideration  of  the  special  order  on  bill  No.  295,  for  the  Pacific 
Bailroad,  be  postponed  until  the  24th  inst. 

The  motion  to  suspend  the  rules  required  a  vote  of  two- 
thirds;  and  the  house,  by  a  vote  of  yeas  137,  nays  66,  sus 
pended  the  rules,  and  the  resolution  was  introduced.  Promi 
nent  among  those  of  the  "  distinguished"  members  of  the 
present  Republican  party  who,  in  this  life-struggle  for  the 
Nebraska  Bill,  voted  with  its  friends  and  placed  it  within  the 
control  of  a  mere  majority,  were  the  Hon.  1ST.  P.  Banks,  of 
Massachusetts,  John  Wentworth,  of  Illinois,  and  James  H. 
Lane,  of  Kansas.  Without  the  votes  of  these  "  eminent" 
gentlemen  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  would  in  all  probability 
have  never  got  out  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

The  question  then  recurred  on  the  adoption  of  the  resolu 
tion,  and  resort  was  again  had  to  parliamentary  tactics ;  the 
struggle  was  protracted  until  six  o'clock  next  morning,  when 
the  resolution  was  adopted. 

The  next  day,  16th,  the  bill  was  considered  in  committee, 
and  each  day  until  Saturday.  At  noon  on  that  day — the 
house  having  met  at  9,  A.  M. — Mr.  Richardson  closed  the 
general  debate.  The  bill  was  still  open  to  amendments,  upon 
which  five-minute  speeches  were  permitted.  On  Monday, 
May  22d,  came  the  last  contest  in  the  house  upon  the  meas 
ure.  The  attendance  was  large — absentees  had  all  paired  off. 
The  galleries  were  crowded,  the  lobbies  filled,  and  the  floor 
thronged  with  senators  and  others  privileged  upon  the  floor. 
The  chaplain,  the  Rev.  W.  H.  Milburn,  in  his  prayer  at  the 
opening  of  the  house  thus  referred  to  the  expected  scenes : 


THE   KAXSAS-NEBRASKA    ACT.  217 

"  Oh  Thou,  the  high  and  mighty  Euler  of  the  Universe,  devoutly  we  im 
plore  thy  blessing  to  rest  upon  this  house,  again  about  to  enter  upon  one  of 
the  most  arduous  and  memorable  struggles  the  country  has  ever  known. 
Help  every  member  to  keep  cool,  calm,  and  self-possessed,  remembering  that 
the  angry  man  gives  his  adversary  the  advantage,  and  the  enraged  party  com 
promises  its  truest  interests.  Assist  every  man  to  co-operate  with  the 
Speaker  and  Chairman  in  preserving  order,  recollecting  that  the  eyes  of  the 
country  are  fixed  upon  this  house,  and  that  the  deep  interests  of  the  coun 
try  are  involved  in  the  deliberations  of  this  Congress.  May  every  man  dare 
to  do  his  duty,  and  abide  the  issues  of  his  conscious  convictions,  we  pray, 
through  Jesus  Christ." 

The  motion  to  go  into  committee  was  resisted  but  prevailed 
— yeas  105,  nays  70.  Under  the  rule  allowing  speeches  upon 
pro  forma  amendment,  the  opponents  of  the  bill  could  keep 
it  in  committee  and  thus  delay  final  action,  at  their  pleasure. 
But  this  was  brought  to  a  sudden  and  most  unexpected  ter 
mination.  Mr.  Stephens  moved  to  amend  the  bill  by  striking 
out  the  enacting  clause.  The  effect  of  this  motion,  which  had 
precedence  of  any  other  motion  to  amend,  if  adopted,  was 
equivalent  to  a  rejection  of  the  bill ;  and  made  it  imperative 
that  the  bill  should  be  reported  to  the  house,  where  a  vote 
could  be  had  confirming  or  setting  aside  the  action  in  commit 
tee.  The  motion  put  an  end  to  the  expectations  of  those  who 
looked  forward  to  a  protracted  campaign  in  parliamentary 
warfare.  Mr.  Chandler,  at  present  representing  the  United 
States  at  one  of  the  European  courts,  in  behalf  of  the  oppon 
ents  of  the  measure,  denounced  the  movement  as  "  wicked," 
and  indulged  in  other  warm  language  of  reprobation.  When 
the  committee  was  dividing  a  member  from  New  York  called 
upon  the  opposition  to  "  oppose  tyrrany  by  revolution."  Mr. 
Stephens'  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  committee  rose  and 
reported  its  action  to  the  house.  The  bill  was  now  before  the 
house,  and  so  far  its  friends  had  made  great  progress  ;  but  it 
was  Monday,  and  motions  to  suspend  the  rules  were  by  the 
rules  in  order  as  privileged  questions.  Mr.  Richardson  moved 
the  previous  question  with  a  view  to  bring  the  house  to  a 
vote  upon  the  bill  and  pending  amendments.  Motions  to  ad 
journ  and  to  adjourn  till  Wednesday  were  made  repeatedly 
and  rejected.  Motions  to  suspend  the  rules  were  interposed. 
Finally,  the  house  was  brought  to  a  vote  upon  concurring 
with  the  committee  in  striking  out  the  enacting  clause  of  the 
bill,  and  the  House  refused  to  concur — yeas  97,  nays  117. 

Mr.  Richardson  then  moved  to  amend  the  bill  by  striking 

K 


218  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

out  all  after  the  enacting  clause,  and  inserting  the  Senate  bill 
without  the  Clayton  amendment.  This  was  agreed  to-^-yeas 
115,  nays  96.  A  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  was  rejected — 
yeas  100,  nays  114.  The  bill  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed 
for  a  third  reading — yeas  112,  nays  99,  and  the  bill  was  passed 
— yeas  113,  nays  100.  The  title  was  then  agreed  to  at  half- 
past  eleven  o'clock,  p.  M.,  and  the  house,  having  disposed  of 
the  bill,  adjourned. 

On  the  next  day  the  bill  was  delivered  to  the  Senate.  It 
was  read  the  first  time,  but  Mr.  Sumner  objecting  the  second 
reading  did  not  take  place ;  on  the  24th  it  was  read  the 
second  time  and  considered.  Mr.  Pearce  renewed  the  Clay 
ton  amendment. 

The  bill  was  debated  until  a  late  hour  on  the  24th,  and  on 
the  25th  was  resumed.  A  warm  and  at  one  time  very  angry 
discussion  took  place  between  Mr.  Bell  and  the  other  southern 
Whigs.  Mr.  Bell  had  voted  to  insert  in  the  bill,  when  it  was 
before  the  Senate  in  February,  the  clause  repealing  the  Mis 
souri  restriction ;  and  yet  had  voted  against  the  bill  because 
of  that  repeal. 

The  Clayton  amendment,  as  renewed  by  Mr.  Pearce,  was 
rejected — yeas  7,  nays  41. 

At  one  o'clock,  on  the  morning  of  the  26th  of  May,  Mr. 
Douglas  closed  the  debate,  and  the  bill,  by  a  vote  of — yeas  35, 
nays  13,  was  ordered  to  a  third  reading.  It  was  then  read  a 
third  time  and  passed  without  a  division. 

And  thus  ended  the  struggle  in  Congress  upon  that  much 
abused,  but  the  wisest,  safest,  and  most  just  measure  ever 
adopted  by  Congress  for  the  vexed  question  of  slavery  in  the 
territories. 

The  following  is  Mr.  Douglas'  memorable  speech  of 
March  3d: 

Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  President,  before  I  proceed  to  the  general  argument  upon 
the  most  important  branch  of  this  question,  I  must  say  a  few  words  in  reply 
to  the  senator  from  Tennessee  [Mr.  Bell],  who  has  spoken  upon  the  bill  to 
day.  He  approves  of  the  principles  of  the  bill ;  he  thinks  they  have  great 
merit ;  but  he  does  not  see  his  way  entirely  clear  to  vote  for  the  bill,  because 
of  the  objections  which  he  has  stated,  most  of  which  relate  to  the  Indians. 

Upon  that  point  I  desire  to  say  that  it  has  never  been  the  custom  in  ter 
ritorial  bills  to  make  regulations  concerning  the  Indians  within  the  limits  of 
the  proposed  territories.  All  matters  relating  to  them  it  has  been  thought 
wise  to  leave  to  subsequent  legislation,  to  bo  brought  forward  by  the  Com 
mittee  on  Indian  Affairs.  I  did  venture  originally  in  this  bill  to  put  in  one 
or  two  provisions  upon  that  subject ;  but,  at  the  suggestion  of  many  sena- 


TIJE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA   ACT.  219 

tors  on  both  sides  of  the  chamber,  they  were  stricken  out  in  order  to  allow 
the  appropriate  committee  of  the  Senate  to  take  charge  of  that  subject.  I 
think,  therefore,  since  we  have  stricken  from  the  bill  all  those  provisions 
which  pertain  to  the  Indians,  and  reserved  the  whole  subject  for  the  consid 
eration  and  action  of  the  appropriate  committee,  we  have  obviated  every 
possible  objection  which  could  reasonably  be  urged  upon  that  score.  "We 
have  every  reason  to  hope  and  trust  that  the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs 
will  propose  such  measures  as  will  do  entire  justice  to  the  Indians,  without 
contravening  the  objects  of  Congress  in  organizing  these  territories. 

But,  sir,  allusion  has  been  made  to  certain  Indian  treaties,  and  it  has  been 
intimated,  if  not  charged  in  direct  terms,  that  we  were  violating  the  stipu 
lations  of  those  treaties  in  respect  to  the  rights  and  lands  of  the  Indians. 
The  senator  from  Texas  [Mr.  Houston]  made  a  very  long  and  interesting 
speech  on  that  subject ;  but  it  so  happened  that  most  of  the  treaties  to 
which  he  referred  were  with  Indians  not  included  within  the  limits  of  this 
bill.  We  have  been  informed,  in  the  course  of  the  debate  to-day,  by  the 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs  [Mr.  Sebastian],  that  there  is 
but  one  treaty  in  existence  relating  to  lands  or  Indians  within  the  limits  of 
either  of  the  proposed  territories,  and  that  is  the  treaty  with  the  Ottawa 
Indians,  about  two  hundred  persons  in  number,  owning  about  thirty-four 
thousand  acres  of  land.  Thus  it  appears  that  the  whole  argument  of  in 
justice  to  the  red  man,  which  in  the  course  of  this  debate  has  called  forth  so 
much  sympathy  and  indignation,  is  confined  to  two  hundred  Indians,  own 
ing  less  than  two  townships  of  land.  Now,  sir,  is  it  possible  that  a  coun 
try,  said  to  be  five  hundred  thousand  square  miles  in  extent,  and  largo 
enough  to  make  twelve  such  states  as  Ohio,  is  to  be  consigned  to  perpetual 
barbarism  merely  on  account  of  that  small  number  of  Indians,  when  the 
bill  itself  expressly  provides  that  those  Indians  and  their  lands  are  not  to  be 
included  within  the  limits  of  the  proposed  territories,  nor  to  be  subject  to 
their  laws  or  jurisdiction  ?  I  would  not  allow  this  measure  to  invade  the 
rights  of  even  one  Indian,  and  hence  I  inserted  in  the  first  section  of  the 
bill  that  none  of  the  tribes  with  whom  we  have  treaty  stipulations  should  bo 
embraced  within  either  of  the  territories,  unless  such  Indians  shall  volun 
tarily  consent  to  be  included  therein  by  treaties  hereafter  to  be  made.  If 
any  senator  can  furnish  me  with  language  more  explicit,  or  which  would 
prove  more  effectual  in  securing  the  rights  of  the  Indians,  I  will  cheerfully 
adopt  it 

Well,  sir,  the  senator  from  Tennessee,  in  a  very  kind  spirit,  here  raises  the 
objection  for  me  to  answer,  that  this  bill  includes  Indians  within  the  limits 
of  these  territories  with  whom  we  have  no  treaties ;  and  he  desires  to  know 
what  we  are  to  do  with  them.  I  will  say  to  him,  that  this  is  not  a  matter 
of  inquiry  which  necessarily  or  properly  arises  upon  the  passage  of  this  bill ; 
that  is  not  a  proper  inquiry  to  come  before  the  Committee  on  Territories. 
You  have  in  all  your  territorial  bills  included  Indians  within  the  boundaries 
of  the  territories.  When  you  erected  the  Territory  of  Minnesota,  you  had 
not  extinguished  the  Indian  title  to  one  foot  of  land  in  that  territory  west 
of  the  Mississippi  river,  and  to  the  major  part  of  that  territory  the  Indian 
title  remains  unextinguished  to  this  day.  In  addition  to  those  wild  tribes, 
you  removed  Indians  from  Wisconsin  and  located  them  within  Minnesota 
since  the  territory  was  organized.  It  will  be  a  question  for  the  considera 
tion  of  the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs,  and  for  the  action  of  Congress, 
when,  in  settlement  and  civilization,  it  shall  become  necessary  to  change  the 
present  policy  in  respect  to  the  Indians.  When  you  erected  the  territorial 
government  of  Oregon,  a  few  years  ago,  you  embraced  within  it  all  the  In 
dians  living  in  the  territory  without  their  consent,  and  without  any  such 
reservations  in  their  behalf  as  are  contained  in  this  bill.  You  had  not  at 


220  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

that  time  made  a  treaty  with  those  Indians,  nor  extinguished  their  title  to 
an  acre  of  land  in  that  territory,  nor  indeed  have  you  done  so  to  this  day. 
So  it  is  in  the  organization  of  Washington  Territory.  You  ran  the  lines 
around  the  country  which  you  thought  ought  to  be  within  the  limits  of  the 
territory,  and  you  embraced  all  the  Indians  within  those  lines ;  but  you 
made  no  provision  in  respect  to  their  rights  or  lands  ;  you  left  that  matter  to 
the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs,  to  the  Indian  laws,  and  to  the  proper  de 
partment,  to  be  arranged  afterwards  as  the  public  interests  might  require. 
The  same  is  true  in  reference  to  Utah  and  New  Mexico. 

In  fact,  the  policy  provided  for  in  this  bill,  in  respect  to  the  Indians,  is 
that  which  is  now  in  force  in  every  one  of  the  territories.  Therefore,  any 
senator  who  objects  to  this  bill  on  that  score  should  have  objected  to  and 
voted  against  every  territorial  bill  which  you  have  now  in  existence.  Yet 
my  friend  from  Texas  has  taken  occasion  to  remind  the  Senate  several  times 
that  it  was  a  matter  of  pride — and  it  ought  to  be  a  matter  of  patriotic  pride 
with  him — that  he  voted  for  every  measure  of  the  Compromise  of  1850,  in 
cluding  the  Utah  and  New  Mexico  territorial  bill,  embracing  all  the  Indians 
within  their  limits.  My  friend  from  Tennessee,  too,  has  been  very  liberal  in 
voting  for  most  of  the  territorial  bills;  and  I  therefore  trust  that  the  same 
patriotic  and  worthy  motives  which  induced  him  to  vote  for  the  territorial 
acts  of  1850  will  enable  him  to  give  his  support  to  the  present  bill,  especially 
as  he  approves  of  the  great  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  upon  which  it 
rests. 

The  senator  from  Tennessee  remarked  further,  that  the  proposed  limits  of 
these  two  territories  were  too  extensive,  that  they  were  large  enough  to  be 
erected  into  eight  different  states ;  and  why,  he  asked,  the  necessity  of  in 
cluding  such  a  vast  amount  of  country  within  the  limits  of  these  two  terri 
tories  ?  I  must  remind  the  senator  that  it  has  always  been  the  practice  to 
include  a  large  extent  of  country  within  one  territory,  and  then  to  subdivide 
it  from  time  to  time  as  the  public  interest  might  require.  Such  was  the  case 
with  the  the  old  Northwest  Territory.  It  was  all  originally  included  within 
one  territorial  government.  Afterwards»0hio  was  cut  off;  and  then  Indi 
ana,  Michigan,  Illinois,  and  Wisconsin  were  successively  erected  into  separate 
territorial  governments,  and  subsequently  admitted  into  the  Union  as  states. 

At  one  period,  it  will  be  remembered,  the  Territory  of  Wisconsin  included 
the  country  embraced  within  the  limits  of  the  States  of  Wisconsin  and 
Iowa,  and  a  part  of  the  State  of  Michigan,  and  the  Territory  of  Minnesota. 
There  is  country  enough  within  the  Territory  of  Minnesota  to  make  two  or 
three  States  of  the  size  of  New  York.  Washington  Territory  embraces 
about  the  same  area.  Oregon  is  large  enough  to  make  three  or  four  States 
as  extensive  as  Pennsylvania,  Utah  two  or  three,  and  New  Mexico  four  or 
five  of  like  dimensions.  Indeed,  the  whole  country  embraced  within  the 
proposed  Territories  of  Nebraska  and  Kansas,  together  with  the  States  of 
Arkansas,  Missouri,  and  Iowa,  and  the  larger  part  of  Minnesota,  and  the 
whole  of  the  Indian  country  west  of  Arkansas,  once  constituted  a  territorial 
government,  under  the  name  of  the  Missouri  Territory.  In  view  of  this 
course  of  legislation  upon  the  subject  of  territorial  organization,  commen 
cing  before  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  coming 
down  to  the  last  session  of  Congress,  it  surely  can  not  be  said  that  there  is 
any  thing  unusual  or  extraordinary  in  the  size  of  the  proposed  territory, 
which  should  compel  a  senator  to  vote  against  the  bill,  while  he  approves  of 
the  principle  involved  in  the  measure. 

It  has  also  been  urged  in  debate  that  there  is  no  necessity  for  these  terri 
torial  organizations ;  and  I  have  been  called  upon  to  point  out  any  public 
and  national  considerations  which  require  action  at  this  time.  Senators 
seem  to  forget  that  our  immense  and  valuable  possessions  on  the  Pacific  are 


THE   KANSAS-NEBRASKA   ACT.  221 

separated  from  the  states  and  organized  territories,  on  this  side  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains,  by  a  vast  wilderness,  filled  by  hostile  savages ;  that  nearly  a 
hundred  thousand  emigrants  pass  through  this  barbarous  wilderness  every 
year,  on  their  way  to  California  and  Oregon ;  that  these  emigrants  are 
American  citizens,  our  own  constituents,  who  are  entitled  to  the  protection, 
of  law  and  government ;  and  that  they  are  left  to  make  their  way,  as  best 
they  may,  without  the  protection  or  aid  of  law  or  government. 

The  United  States  mails  for  New  Mexico  and  Utah,  and  all  official  com 
munications  between  this  government  and  the  authorities  of  those  territo 
ries,  are  required  to  be  carried  over  these  wild  plains,  and  through  the 
gorges  of  the  mountains,  where  you  have  made  no  provision  for  roads 
bridges,  or  ferries,  to  facilitate  travel,  or  forts  or  other  means  of  safety  to 
protect  life.  As  often  as  I  have  brought  forward  and  urged  the  adoption  ot 
measures  to  remedy  these  evils,  and  afford  security  against  the  dangers  to 
which  our  people  are  constantly  exposed,  they  have  been  promptly  voted 
down  as  not  being  of  sufficient  importance  to  command  the  favorable  consid 
eration  of  Congress.  Now,  when  I  propose  to  organize  the  territories,  and 
allow  the  people  to  do  for  themselves  what  you  have  so  often  refused  to 
do  for  them,  I  am  told  that  there  are  not  white  inhabitants  enough  perma 
nently  settled  in  the  country  to  require  and  sustain  a  government.  True 
there  is  not  a  very  large  population  there,  for  the  very  good  reason  that  your 
Indian  code  and  intercourse  laws  exclude  the  settlers,  and  forbid  their  re 
maining  there  to  cultivate  the  soil.  You  refuse  to  throw  the  country  open 
to  settlers,  and  then  object  to  the  organization  of  the  territories  upon  the 
ground  that  there  is  not  a  sufficient  number  of  inhabitants. 

The  senator  from  Connecticut  (Mr.  Smith)  has  made  a  long  argument  to 
prove  that  there  are  no  inhabitants  in  the  proposed  territories,  because 
nearly  all  of  those  who  have  gone  and  settled  there  have  done  so  in  viola 
tion  of  certain  old  acts  of  Congress  which  forbid  the  people  to  take  possession 
of  and  settle  upon  the  public  lands  until  after  they  should  be  surveyed  and 
brought  into  market. 

I  do  not  propose  to  discuss  the  question  whether  these  settlers  are  techni 
cally  legal  inhabitants  or  not.  It  is  enough  for  me  that  they  are  a  part  of  our 
own  people  ;  that  they  are  settled  on  the  public  domain ;  that  the  public  in 
terests  would  be  promoted  by  throwing  that  public  domain  open  to  settle 
ment  ;  and  that  there  is  no  good  reason  why  the  protection  of  law  and  the 
blessings  of  government  should  not  be  extended  to  them.  I  must  be  per 
mitted  to  remind  the  senator  that  the  same  objection  existed  in  its  full  force 
to  Minnesota,  to  Oregon  and  to  "Washington,  when  each  of  those  territories 
were  organized ;  and  that  I  have  no  recollection  that  he  deemed  it  his  duty 
to  call  the  attention  of  Congress  to  the  objection,  or  considered  it  of  sufficient 
importance  to  justify  him  in  recording  his  own  vote  against  the  organization 
of  either  of  those  territories. 

Mr.  President,  I  do  not  feel  called  upon  to  make  any  reply  to  the  argu 
ment  which  the  senator  from  Connecticut  has  urged  against  the  passage  of 
this  bill  upon  the  scorce  of  expense  in  sustaining  these  territorial  govern 
ments,  for  the  reason  that,  if  the  public  interests  require  the  enactment  of 
the  law,  it  follows  as  a  natural  consequence  that  all  the  expenses  necessary 
to  carry  it  into  effect  are  wise  and  proper. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  great  principle  involved  in 
the  bill,  without  omitting,  however,  to  notice  some  of  those  extraneous  mat 
ters  which  have  been  brought  into  this  discussion  with  the  view  of  produc 
ing  another  anti-slavery  agitation.  We  have  been  told  by  nearly  every 
senator  who  has  spoken  in  opposition  to  this  bill,  that  at  the  time  of  its  in 
troduction  the  people  were  in  a  state  of  profound  quiet  and  repose ;  that  the 
anti-slavery  agitation  had  entirely  ceased ;  and  that  the  whole  country  was 


292  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

acquiescing  cheerfully  and  cordially  in  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850  as 
a  final  adjustment  of  this  vexed  question. 

Sir,  it  is  truly  refreshing  to  hear  senators,  who  contested  every  inch  of 
ground  in  opposition  to  those  measures  when  they  were  under  discussion, 
who  predicted  all  manner  of  evils  and  calamities  from  their  adoption,  and 
who  raised  the  cry  of  repeal,  and  even  resistance,  to  their  execution,  after 
they  had  become  the  laws  of  the  land — I  say  it  is  really  refreshing  to  hear 
these  same  senators  now  bear  their  united  testimony  to  the  wisdom  of  those 
measures,  and  to  the  patriotic  motives  which  induced  us  to  pass  them  in  de 
fiance  of  their  threats  and  resistance,  and  to  their  beneficial  effects  in  restor 
ing  peace,  harmony,  and  fraternity  to  a  distracted  country.  These  are  pre 
cious  confessions  from  the  lips  of  those  who  stand  pledged  never  to  assent  to 
the  propriety  of  those  measures,  and  to  make  war  upon  them  so  long  as  they 
shall  remain  upon  the  statute-book.  I  well  understand  that  these  confessions 
are  now  made,  not  with  the  view  of  yielding  their  assent  to  the  propriety  of 
carrying  those  enactments  into  faithful  execution,  but  for  the  purpose  of 
having  a  pretext  for  charging  upon  me,  as  the  author  of  this  bill,  the  respon 
sibility  of  an  agitation  which  they  are  trying  to  produce.  They  say  that  I, 
and  not  they,  have  revived  the  agitation.  What  have  I  done  to  render 
me  obnoxious  to  this  charge  ?  They  say  I  wrote  and  introduced  this  Neb 
raska  Bill.  That  is  true ;  but  I  was  not  a  volunteer  in  the  transaction.  The 
Senate,  by  a  unanimous  vote,  appointed  me  chairman  of  the  territorial  com 
mittee,  and  associated  five  intelligent  and  patriotic  senators  with  me,  and 
thus  made  it  our  duty  to  take  charge  of  all  territorial  business.  In  like 
manner,  and  with  the  concurrence  of  these  complaining  senators,  the  Senate 
referred  to  us  a  distinct  proposition  to  organize  this  Nebraska  Territory,  and 
required  us  to  report  specifically  apon  the  question.  I  repeat,  then,  we  were 
not  volunteers  in  this  business.  The  duty  was  imposed  upon  us  by  the 
Senate.  We  were  not  unmindful  of  the  delicacy  and  responsibility  of  the 
position.  We  were  aware  that  from  1820  to  1850  the  abolition  doctrine  of 
congressional  interference  with  slavery  in  the  territories  and  new  states  had 
so  far  prevailed  as  to  keep  up  an  incessant  slavery  agitation  in  Congress  and 
throughout  the  country,  whenever  any  new  territory  was  to  be  acquired  or 
organized.  We  were  also  aware  that,  in  1850,  the  right  of  the  people  to  de 
cide  this  question  for  themselves,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution,  was  sub 
stituted  for  the  doctrine  of  congressional  intervention.  The  first  question, 
therefore,  which  the  committee  were  called  upon  to  decide,  and  indeed  the 
only  question  of  any  material  importance,  in  framing  this  bill,  was  this : 
Shall  we  adhere  to  and  carry  out  the  principles  recognized  by  the  Compro 
mise  measures  of  1850,  or  shall  we  go  back  to  the  old  exploded  doctrine  of 
congressional  interference,  as  established  in  1820  in  a  large  portion  of  the 
country,  and  which  it  was  the  object  of  the  Wilmont  Proviso  to  give  a  uni 
versal  application,  not  only  to  all  the  territory  which  we  then  possessed,  but 
all  which  we  might  hereafter  acquire  ?  There  were  no  other  alternatives. 
We  were  compelled  to  frame  the  bill  upon  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  two 
principles.  The  doctrine  of  1820  or  the  doctrine  of  1850  must  prevail.  In 
the  discharge  of  the  duty  imposed  upon  us  by  the  Senate,  the  committee 
could  not  hesitate  upon  this  point,  whether  we  consulted  our  individual 
opinions  and  principles  or  those  which  were  known  to  be  entertained  and 
boldly  avowed  by  a  large  majority  of  the  Senate.  The  two  great  political 
parties  of  the  country  stood  solemnly  pledged  before  the  world  to  adhere  to 
the  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  "in  principle  and  substance."  A  large 
majority  of  the  Senate,  indeed  every  member  of  the  body,  I  believe,  except 
the  two  avowed  Abolitionists  (Mr.  Chase  and  Mr.  Sumner),  profess  to  belong 
to  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  parties,  and  hence  was  supposed  to  be  under 
a  high  moral  obligation  to  carry  out  the  "  principle  and  substance"  of  those 


THE   KANSAS-NEBRASKA   ACT.  223 

measures  in  all  the  new  territorial  organizations.  The  report  of  the  com 
mittee  was  in  accordance  with  this  obligation.  I  am  arraigned,  therefore, 
for  having  endeavored  to  represent  the  opinions  and  principles  of  the  Senate 
truly ;  for  having  performed  my  duty  in  conformity  with  the  parliamentary 
law ;  for  having  been  faithful  to  the  trust  reposed  in  me  by  the  Senate.  Let 
the  vote  this  night  determine  whether  I  have  thus  faithfully  represented  your 
opinions.  "When  a  majority  of  the  Senate  shall  have  passed  the  bill ;  when 
a  majority  of  the  states  shall  have  endorsed  it  through  their  representatives 
upon  this  floor  ;  when  a  majority  of  the  South  and  a  majority  of  the  North 
shall  have  sanctioned  it ;  when  a  majority  of  the  "Whig  party  and  a  majority 
of  the  Democratic  party  shall  have  voted  for  it ;  when  each  of  these  propo 
sitions  shall  be  demonstrated  by  the  vote  this  night  on  the  final  passage  of 
the  bill,  I  shall  be  willing  to  submit  the  question  to  the  country,  whether, 
as  the  organ  of  the  committee,  I  performed  my  duty  in  the  report  and  bill 
which  have  called  down  upon  my  head  so  much  denunciation  and  abuse. 

Mr.  President,  the  opponents  of  this  measure  have  had  much  to  say  about 
the  mutations  and  modifications  which  this  bill  has  undergone  since  it  was 
first  introduced  by  myself,  and  about  the  alleged  departure  of  the  bill,  in  its 
present  form,  from  the  principle  laid  down  in  the  original  report  of  the  com 
mittee  as  a  rule  of  action  in  all  future  territorial  organizations.  Fortunately 
there  is  no  necessity,  even  if  your  patience  would  tolerate  such  a  course  of 
argument  at  this  late  hour  of  the  night,  for  me  to  examine  these  speeches  in 
detail,  and  to  reply  to  each  charge  separately.  Each  speaker  seems  to  have 
followed  faithfully  in  the  footsteps  of  his  leader — in  the  path  marked  out  by 
the  Abolition  confederates  in  their  manifesto,  which  I  exposed  on  a  former 
occasion.  You  have  seen  them  on  their  winding  way,  meandering  the  nar 
row  and  crooked  path  in  Indian  file,  each  treading  close  upon  the  heels  of 
the  other,  and  neither  venturing  to  take  a  step  to  the  right  or  left,  or  to  oc 
cupy  one  inch  of  ground  which  did  not  bear  the  foot-print  of  the  Abolition 
champion.  To  answer  one,  therefore,  is  to  answer  the  whole.  The  state 
ment  to  which  they  seem  to  attach  the  most  importance,  and  which  they 
have  repeated  oftener  perhaps  than  any  other,  is  that,  pending  the  Compromise 
measures  of  1850,  no  man  in  or  out  of  Congress  ever  dreamed  of  abrogating 
the  Missouri  Compromise ;  that  from  that  period  down  to  the  present  session 
nobody  supposed  that  its  validity  had  been  impaired,  or  any  thing  dono 
which  rendered  it  obligatory  upon  us  to  make  it  inoperative  hereafter ;  that 
at  the  time  of  submitting  the  report  and  bill  to  the  Senate,  on  the  4th  of  Jan 
uary  last,  neither  I  nor  any  member  of  the  committee  ever  thought  of  such  a 
thing ;  and  that  we  could  never  be  brought  up  to  the  point  of  abrogating  the 
eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  act  until  after  the  senator  from  Kentucky  in 
troduced  his  amendment  to  my  bill. 

Mr.  President,  before  I  proceed  to  expose  the  many  misrepresentations 
contained  in  this  complicated  charge,  I  must  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate 
to  the  false  issue  which  these  gentlemen  are  endeavoring  to  impose  upon 
the  country,  for  the  purpose  of  diverting  public  attention  from  the  real  issue 
contained  in  the  bill.  They  wish  to  have  the  people  believe  that  the  abrogation 
of  what  they  call  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  the  main  object  and  aim  of  the 
bill,  and  that  the  only  question  involved  is,  whether  the  prohibition  of  slav 
ery  north  of  36°  30'  shall  be  repealed  or  not?  That  which  is  a  mere  inci 
dent  they  choose  to  consider  the  principal.  They  make  war  on  the  means 
by  which  we  propose  to  accomplish  an  object,  instead  of  openly  resisting  the 
object  itself.  The  principle  which  we  propose  to  carry  into  effect  by  the 
bill  is  this :  That  Congress  shall  neither  legislate  slavery  into  any  territories 
or  state,  nor  out  of  the  same ;  but  the  people  shall  be  left  free  to  regulate  their 
domestic  concerns  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States. 


224  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

In  order  to  cany  this  principle  into  practical  operation,  it  becomes  neces 
sary  to  remove  whatever  legal  obstacles  might  be  found  in  the  way  of  its 
free  exercise.  It  is  only  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  this  great  funda 
mental  principle  of  self-government  that  the  bill  renders  the  eighth  section 
of  the  Missouri  act  inoperative  and  void. 

Now,  let  me  ask,  will  these  senators  who  have  arraigned  me,  or  any  one 
of  them,  have  the  assurance  to  rise  in  his  place  and  declare  that  this  great 
principle  was  never  thought  of  or  advocated  as  applicable  to  territorial  bills, 
in  1850  ;  that,  from  that  session  until  the  present,  nobody  ever  thought  of 
incorporating  this  principle  in  all  new  territorial  organizations ;  that  the 
Committee  on  Territories  did  not  recommend  it  in  their  report ;  and  that  it 
required  the  amendment  of  the  senator  from  Kentucky  to  bring  us  up  to 
that  point  ?  "Will  any  one  of  my  accusers  dare  to  make  this  issue,  and  let  it 
be  tried  by  the  record  ?  I  will  begin  with  the  Compromises  of  1850.  Any 
senator  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  examine  our  journals  will  find  that  on 
the  25th  of  March  of  that  year  I  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Territories 
two  bills  including  the  following  measures :  the  admission  of  California,  a 
territorial  government  for  Utah,  a  territorial  government  for  New  Mexico, 
and  the  adjustment  of  the  Texas  boundary.  These  bills  proposed  to  leave 
the  people  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico  free  to  decide  the  slavery  question  for 
themselves,  in  the  precise  language  of  the  Nebraska  Bill  now  under  discussion. 
A  few  weeks  afterwards,  the  Committee  of  Thirteen  took  those  two  bills  and 
put  a  wafer  between  them,  and  reported  them  back  to  the  Senate  as  one 
bill,  with  some  slight  amendments.  One  of  those  amendments  was,  that  the 
territorial  legislatures  should  not  legislate  upon  the  subject  of  African  slavery. 
I  objected  to  that  provision  upon  the  ground  that  it  subverted  the  great  prin 
ciple  of  self-government  upon  which  the  bill  had  been  originally  framed  by 
the  Territorial  Committee.  On  the  first  trial,  the  Senate  refused  to  strike  it 
out,  but  subsequently  did  so,  after  full  debate,  in  order  to  establish  that 
principle  as  the  rule  of  action  in  territorial  organizations. 

Mr.  Dodge,  of  Iowa.     It  was  done  on  your  own  motion, 

Mr.  Douglas.  Upon  this  point  I  trust  I  will  be  excused  for  reading  one  or 
two  sentences  from  some  remarks  I  made  in  the  Senate,  on  the  3d  of  June, 
1850: 

"  The  position  that  I  have  ever  taken  has  been  that  this,  the  slavery  ques 
tion,  and  all  other  questions  relating  to  the  domestic  affairs  and  domestic 
policy  of  the  territories,  ought  to  be  left  to  the  decision  of  the  people  them 
selves,  and  that  we  ought  to  be  content  with  whatever  way  they  would  de 
cide  the  question,  because  they  have  a  much  deeper  interest  in  these  mattters 
than  we  have,  and  know  much  better  what  institutions  will  suit  them,  than 
we,  who  have  never  been  there,  can  decide  for  them." 

Again,  in  the. same  debate,  I  said: 

"I  do  not  see  how  those  of  us  who  have  taken  the  position  which  we 
have  taken,  (that  of  non-interference,)  and  have  argued  in  favor  of  the  right 
of  the  people  to  legislate  for  themselves  on  this  question,  can  support  such  a 
provision  without  abandoning  all  the  arguments  which  we  urged  in  the 
presidential  campaign  in  the  year  1848,  and  the  principles  set  forth  by  the 
honorable  senator  from  Michigan  in  that  letter  which  is  known  as  the 
4  Nicholson  letter.'  We  are  required  to  abandon  that  platform ;  we  are  re 
quired  to  abandon  those  principles,  and  to  stultify  ourselves,  and  to  adopt  the 
opposite  doctrine ;  and  for  what  ?  In  order  to  say  that  the  people  of  the 
territories  shall  not  have  such  institutions  as  they  shall  deem  adapted  to 
their  condition  and  their  wants.  I  do  not  see,  sir,  how  such  a  provision  as 
that  can  be  acceptable  either  to  the  people  of  the  North  or  the  South." 

Mr.  President,  I  could  go  on  and  multiply  extract  after  extract  from  my 
speeches  in  1850,  and  prior  to  that  date,  to  show  that  this  doctrine  of  leaving 


THE   KANSAS-NEBRASKA    ACT.  225 

the  people  to  decide  these  questions  for  themselves  is  not  an  "  after-thought" 
with  me,  seized  upon  this  session  for  the  first  time,  as  my  calumniators  have 
so  frequently  and  boldly  charged  in  their  speeches  during  this  debate,  and  in 
their  manifesto  to  the  public.  I  refused  to  support  the  celebrated  Omnibus 
Bill  in  1850  until  the  obnoxious  provision  was  stricken  out,  and  the  principle 
of  self-government  restored,  as  it  existed  in  my  original  bill.  No  sooner 
were  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850  passed,  than  the  Abolition  confeder 
ates,  who  lead  the  opposition  to  this  bill  now,  raised  the  cry  of  repeal  in 
some  sections  of  the  country,  and  in  others  forcible  resistance  to  the  execu 
tion  of  the  law.  In  order  to  arrest  and  suppress  the  treasonable  purposes 
of  these  Abolition  confederates,  and  avert  the  horrors  of  civil  war,  it  became 
my  duty,  on  the  23d  of  October,  1850,  to  address  an  excited  and  frenzied 
multitude  at  Chicago,  in  defence  of  each  and  all  the  Compromise  measures 
of  that  year.  I  will  read  one  or  two  sentences  from  that  speech,  to  show 
how  those  measures  were  then  understood  and  explained  by  their  advocates : 

"  These  measures  are  predicated  on  the  great  fundamental  principle  that  every 
people  ought  to  possess  the  right  of  forming  and  regulating  their  own  internal 
concerns  and  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way." 

Again : 

"  These  things  are  all  confided  by  the  Constitution  to  each  State  to  decide 
for  itself,  and  I  KNOW  OF  NO  REASON  WHY  THE  same  principle  should  not  be 
confided  to  the  territories." 

In  this  speech  it  will  be  seen  that  I  lay  down  a  general  principle  of  uni 
versal  application,  and  make  no  distinction  between  territories  North  or 
South  of  36°  30'. 

I  am  aware  that  some  of  the  Abolition  confederates  have  perpetrated  a  mon 
strous  forgery  on  that  speech,  and  are  now  circulating  though  the  Abolition 
newspapers  the  statement  that  I  said  that  I  would  "  cling  with  the  tenacity 
of  life  to  the  Compromise  of  1850."  This  statement,  false  as  it  is — a  deliber 
ate  act  of  forgery,  as  it  is  known  to  be  by  all  who  have  ever  seen  or  read 
the  speech  referred  to — constitutes  the  staple  article  out  of  which  most  of 
the  Abolition  orators  at  the  small  anti-Nebraska  meetings  manufacture  the 
greater  part  of  their  speches.  I  now  declare  that  there  is  not  a  sentence,  or 
a  line,  nor  even  a  word  in  that  speech,  which  imposes  the  slightest  limita 
tion  on  the  application  of  the  great  principle  embraced  in  this  bill  in  all  new 
territorial  organizations,  without  the  least  reference  to  the  line  of  36°  30'. 

At  the  session  of  1850-51,  a  few  weeks  after  this  speech  was  made  at 
Chicago,  and  when  it  had  been  published  in  pamphlet  form  and  circulated 
extensively  over  the  States,  the  Legislature  of  Illinois  proceeded  to  revise  its 
action  upon  the  slavery  question,  and  define  its  position  on  the  Compromise 
of  1850.  After  rescinding  the  resolutions  adopted  at  a  previous  session,  in 
structing  my  colleague  and  myself  to  vote  for  a  proposition  prohibiting 
slavery  in  the  territories,  resolutions  were  adopted  approving  the  Compro 
mise  measures  of  1850.  I  will  read  one  of  the  resolutions,  which  was 
adopted  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  by  a  vote  of  61  yeas  to  4  nays : 

"  Resolved,  That  our  liberty  and  independence  are  based  upon  the  right  of 
the  people  to  form  for  themselves  such  a  government  as  they  may  choose ; 
that  this  great  privilege — the  birthright  of  freemen,  the  gift  of  heaven,  se 
cured  to  us  by  the  blood  of  our  ancestors— ought  to  be  extended  to  future 
generations;  and  no  limitation  ought  to  be  applied  to  this  power,  in  the  or 
ganization  of  any  territory  of  the  United  States,  of  either  a  territorial  gov 
ernment  or  a  State  Constitution :  Provided,  the  government  so  established 
shall  be  republican,  and  in  conformity  with  the  Constitution." 

Another  series  of  resolutions  having  passed  the  Senate  almost  unanimously, 
embracing  the  same  principle  in  different  language,  they  were  concurred  in 
by  the  house.  Thus  was  the  position  of  Illinois,  upon  the  slavery  question, 

K2 


226  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

defined  at  the  first  session  of  the  Legislature  after  the  adoption  of  the  Com 
promise  of  1850. 

Now,  sir,  what  becomes  of  the  declaration  which  has  been  made  by  nearly 
every  opponent  of  this  bill,  that  nobody  in  this  whole  Union  ever  dreamed 
that  the  principle  of  the  Utah  and  New  Mexican  bill  was  to  be  incorporated 
into  all  future  territorial  organizations  ?  I  have  shown  that  my  own  State 
so  understood  and  declared  it  at  the  time  in  the  most  explicit  and  solemn 
manner.  Illinois  declared  that  our  "  liberty  and  independence"  rest  upon 
this  "principle;"  that  the  principle  "  ought  to  be  extended  to  future  genera 
tions;"  and  that  "NO  LIMITATION  OUGHT  TO  BE  APPLIED  TO  THIS  POWER  IN 

THE  ORGANIZATION  OF  ANY  TERRITORY  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES."      No   6XC6p- 

tion  is  made  in  regard  to  Nebraska.  No  Missouri  compromise  line ;  no 
reservation  of  the  country  north  of  3G°  30',  The  principle  is  declared  to  be 
the  "birthright  of  freemen;"  the  "gift  of  Heaven,"  to  be  "applied  without 
limitation,"  in  Nebraska  as  well  as  Utah,  North  as  well  as  South  of  36°  30'. 

It  may  not  be  out  of  place  here  to  remark  that  the  Legislature  of  Illinois, 
at  its  recent  session,  has  passed  resolutions  approving  the  Nebraska  bill ;  and 
among  the  resolutions  is  one  in  the  precise  language  of  the  resolution  of  1851, 
which  I  have  just  read  to  the  Senate. 

Thus  I  have  shown,  Mr.  President,  that  the  Legislature  and  people  of  Illi 
nois  have  always  understood  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850  as  establishing 
certain  principles  as  rules  of  action  in  the  organization  of  all  new  territories, 
and  that  no  limitation  was  to  be  made  on  either  side  of  the  geographical  line 
of  36°  30'. 

Neither  my  time  nor  your  patience  will  allow  me  to  take  up  the  resolu 
tions  of  the  different  states  in  detail,  and  show  what  has  been  the  common 
understanding  of  the  whole  country  upon  this  point.  I  am  now  vindicating 
myself  and  my  own  action  against  the  assaults  of  my  calumniators ;  and,  for 
that  purpose,  it  is  sufficient  to  show  that,  in  the  report  and  bill  which  I  have 
presented  to  the  Senate,  I  have  only  carried  out  the  known  principles  and 
solemnly  declared  will  of  the  state  whose  representative  I  am.  I  will  now 
invite  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  the  report  of  the  committee,  in  order 
that  it  may  be  known  how  much,  or  rather  how  little,  truth  there  is  for  the 
allegation  which  has  been  so  often  made  and  repeated  on  this  floor,  that  the 
idea  of  allowing  the  people  in  Nebraska  to  decide  the  slavery  question  for 
themselves  was  a  "sheer  after-thought,"  conceived  since  the  report  was 
made,  and  not  until  the  senator  from  Kentucky  proposed  his  amendment  to 
the  bill. 

I  read  from  that  portion  of  the  report  in  which  the  committee  lay  down  the 
principle  by  which  they  proposed  to  be  governed : 

"  In  the  judgment  of  your  committee,  those  measures  (Compromise  of  1850) 
were  intended  to  have  a  far  more  comprehensive  and  enduring  effect  than 
the  mere  adjustment  of  the  difficulties  arising  out  of  the  recent  acquisition 
of  Mexican  territory.  They  were  designed  to  establish  certain  great  princi 
ples,  which  would  not  only  furnish  adequate  remedies  for  existing  evils,  but 
in  all  time  to  come  avoid  the  perils  of  a  similar  agitation,  by  withdrawing  the 
question  of  slavery  from  the  halls  of  Congress  and  the  political  arena,  and  com 
mitting  it  to  the  arbitrament  of  those  who  were  immediately  interested  in  and 
alone  responsible  for  its  consequences" 

After  making  a  brief  argument  in  defence  of  this  principle,  the  report  pro 
ceeds,  as  follows : 

"  From  these  provisions,  it  is  apparent  that  the  Compromise  measures  of 
1850  affirm  and  rest  upon  the  following  propositions : 

"  First.  That  all  questions  pertaining  to  slavery  in  the  territories  and  in 
the  new  states  to  be  formed  therefrom,  are  to  be  left  to  the  decision  of  the 
people  residing  therein,  by  their  appropriate  representatives,  to  be  chosen  by 
them  for  that  purpose." 


THE   KANSAS-NEBRASKA    ACT.  227 

And,  in  conclusion,  the  report  proposes  a  substitute  for  the  bill  introduced 
by  the  senator  from  Iowa,  and  concludes  as  follows : 

"  The  substitute  for  the  bill  which  your  committee  have  prepared,  and 
which  is  commended  to  the  favorable  action  of  the  Senate,  proposes  to  carry 
these  propositions  and  principles  into  practical  operation,  in  the  precise  lan 
guage  of  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850." 

Mr.  President,  as  there  has  been  so  much  misrepresentation  upon  this  point, 
I  must  be  permitted  to  repeat  that  the  doctrine  of  the  report  of  the  commit 
tee,  as  has  been  conclusively  proved  by  these  extracts,  is — 

First.  That  the  whole  question  of  slavery  should  be  withdrawn  from  the 
halls  of  Congress,  and  the  political  arena,  and  committed  to  the  arbitrament 
of  those  who  are  immediately  interested  in  and  alone  responsible  for  its  ex 
istence. 

Second.  The  applying  this  principle  to  the  territories  and  the  new  states 
to  be  formed  therefrom,  all  questions  pertaining  to  slavery  were  to  be  re 
ferred  to  the  people  residing  therein. 

Third.  That  the  committee  proposed  to  carry  these  propositions  and  prin 
ciples  into  effect  in  the  precise  language  of  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850. 

Are  not  these  propositions  identical  with  the  principles  and  provisions  of 
the  bill  on  your  table?  If  there  is  a  hair's  breadth  of  discrepancy  between 
the  two,  I  ask  any  senator  to  rise  in  his  place  and  point  it  out.  Both  rest 
upon  the  great  principle,  which  forms  the  basis  of  all  our  institutions,  that 
the  people  are  to  decide  the  question  for  themselves,  subject  only  to  the 
Constitution. 

^  But  my  accusers  attempt  to  raise  up  a  false  issue,  and  thereby  divert  pub 
lic  attention  from  the  real  one,  by  the  cry  that  the  Missouri  Compromise  is  to 
be  repealed  or  violated  by  the  passage  of  this  bill.  Well,  if  the  eighth  section 
of  the  Missouri  Act,  which  attempted  to  fix  the  destinies  of  future  genera 
tions  in  those  territories  for  all  time  to  come,  in  utter  disregard  of  the  rights 
and  wishes  of  the  people  when  they  should  be  received  into  the  Union  aa 
states,  be  inconsistent  with  the  great  principle  of  self-government  and  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  it  ought  to  be  abrogated.  The  legislation 
of  1850  abrogated  the  Missouri  Compromise,  so  far  as  the  country  en*fe raced 
within  the  limits  of  Utah  and  Now  Mexico  was  covered  by  the  slavery  re 
striction.  It  is  true,  that  those  acts  did  not  in  terms  and  by  name  repeal 
the  act  of  1820,  as  originally  adopted,  or  as  extended  by  the  resolutions  an 
nexing  Texas  in  1845,  any  more  than  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Terri 
tories  proposes  to  repeal  the  same  acts  this  session.  But  the  acts  of  1850  did 
authorize  the  people  of  those  territories  to  exercise  "  all  rightful  powers  of 
legislation  consistent  with  the  Constitution,"  not  excepting  the  question  of 
slavery ;  and  did  provide  that,  when  those  territories  should  be  admitted 
into  the  Union,  they  should  be  received  with  or  without  slavery,  as  the  peo 
ple  thereof  might  determine  at  the  date  of  their  admission.  These  provisions 
were  in  direct  conflict  with  a  clause  in  a  former  enactment,  declaring  that 
slavery  should  be  forever  prohibited  in  any  portion  of  said  territories,  and 
hence  rendered  such  clause  inoperative  and  void  to  the  extent  of  such  con 
flict.  This  was  an  inevitable  consequence,  resulting  from  the  provisions  in 
those  acts  which  gave  the  people  the  right  to  decide  the  slavery  question  for 
themselves,  in  conformity  with  the  Constitution.  It  was  not  necessary  to  go 
further  and  declare  that  certain  previous  enactments,  which  were  incompati 
ble  with  the  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  in  the  bills,  "  are  hereby  re 
pealed."  The  very  act  of  granting  those  powers  and  rights  has  the  legal 
effect  of  removing  all  obstructions  to  the  exercise  of  them  by  the  people,  as 
prescribed  in  those  territorial  bills.  Following  that  example,  the  Committee 
on  Territories  did  not  consider  it  necessary  to  declare  the  eighth  section  of 
the  Missouri  Act  repealed.  "We  were  content  to  organize  Nebraska  in  tho 


228  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

precise  language  of  the  Utah  and  New  Mexican  bills.  Our  object  was  to 
leave  the  people  entirely  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions 
and  internal  concerns  in  their  own  way,  under  the  Constitution ;  and  we 
deemed  it  wise  to  accomplish  that  object  in  the  exact  terms  in  which  the 
same  thing  had  been  done  in  Utah  and  New  Mexico  by  the  acts  of  1850. 
This  was  the  principle  upon  which  the  committee  reported ;  and  our  bill  was 
supposed,  and  is  now  believed,  to  have  been  in  accordance  with  it.  When 
doubts  were  raised  whether  the  bill  did  fully  carry  out  the  principles  laid 
down  in  the  report,  amendments  were  made,  from  time  to  time,  in  order  to 
avoid  all  misconstruction,  and  make  the  true  intent  of  the  act  more  explicit, 
The  last  of  these  amendments  was  adopted  yesterday,  on  the  motion  of  the 
distinguished  senator  from  North  Carolina,  (Mr.  Badger,)  in  regard  to  the 
revival  of  any  laws  or  regulations  which  may  have  existed  prior  to  1820. 
That  amendment  was  not  intended  to  change  the  legal  effect  of  the  bill.  Its 
object  was  to  repel  the  slander  which  had  been  propagated  by  the  enemies 
of  the  measure  in  the  North,  that  the  southern  supporters  of  the  bill  desired 
to  legislate  slavery  into  these  territories.  The  South  denies  the  right  of 
Congress  either  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  territory  or  state,  or  out  of  any  ter 
ritory  or  state.  Non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  states  or 
territories  is  the  doctrine  of  the  bill,  and  all  the  amendments  which  have 
been  agreed  to  have  been  made  with  the  view  of  removing  all  doubt  and 
cavil  as  to  the  true  meaning  and  object  of  the  measure. 

Mr.  President,  I  think  I  have  succeeded  in  vindicating  myself  and  the  action 
of  the  committee  from  the  assaults  which  have  been  made  upon  us  in  conse 
quence  of  these  amendments.  It  seems  to  be  the  tactics  of  our  opponents  to 
direct  their  arguments  against  the  unimportant  points  and  incidental  questions 
which  are  to  be  affected  by  carrying  out  the  principle,  with  the  hope  of  reliev 
ing  themselves  from  the  necessity  of  controverting  the  principle  itself.  The 
senator  from  Ohio  (Mr.  Chase)  led  oflf  gallantly  in  the  charge  that  the  com 
mittee,  in  the  report  and  bill  first  submitted,  did  not  contemplate  the  repeal  of 
the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  could  not  be  brought  to  that  point  until  after  the 
senator  from  Kentucky  offered  his  amendment.  The  senator  from  Connecti 
cut  (Mr.  Smith)  followed  his  lead,  and  repeated  the  same  statement.  Then 
came  the  other  senator  from  Ohio  (Mr.  Wade),  and  the  senator  from  New 
York  (Mr.  Seward),  and  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Sumner),  all 
singing  the  same  song,  only  varying  the  tune. 

Let  me  ask  these  senators  what  they  mean  by  this  statement  ?  Do  they 
wish  to  be  understood  as  saying  that  the  report  and  first  form  of  the  bill  did 
not  provide  for  leaving  the  slavery  question  to  the  decision  of  the  people  in  the 
terms  of  the  Utah  bill?  Surely  they  will  not  dare  to  say  that,  for  I  have 
already  shown  that  the  two  measures  were  identical  in  principle  and  enact 
ment.  Do  they  mean  to  say  that  the  adoption  of  our  first  bill  would  not  have 
had  the  legal  effect  to  have  rendered  the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  Act 
"  inoperative  and  void,"  to  use  the  language  of  the  present  bill  ?  If  this  be 
not  their  meaning,  will  they  rise  in  their  places  and  inform  the  Senate  what 
their  meaning  was  ?  They  must  have  had  some  object  in  giving  so  much  prom 
inence  to  this  statement,  and  in  repeating  it  so  often.  I  address  the  question 
to  the  senators  from  Ohio  and  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Chase  and  Mr.  Sumner).  I 
despair  in  extorting  a  response  from  them ;  for  no  matter  in  what  way  they 
may  answer  upon  this  point,  I  have  in  my  hand  the  evidence,  over  their  own 
signatures,  to  disprove  the  truth  of  their  answer.  I  allude  to  their  appeal  or 
manifesto  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  which  they  arraign  the  bill 
and  report,  in  coarse  and  savage  terms,  as  a  proposition  to  repeal  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  to  violate  plighted  faith,  to  abrogate  a  solemn  compact,  etc.,  etc. 
This  document  was  signed  by  these  two  senators  in  their  official  capacity,  and 
published  to  the  world  before  any  amendments  had  been  offered  to  the  bill. 


THE   KANSAS-NEBRASKA   ACT.  229 

It  was  directed  against  the  committee's  first  bill  and  report  and  against  them 
alone.  If  the  statements  in  this  document  be  trne,  that  the 'first  bill  did  repeal 
the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  Act,  what  are  we  to  think  of  the  statements 
in  their  speeches  since,  that  such  was  not  the  intention  of  the  commitee,  was 
not  the  recommendation  of  the  report,  and  was  not  the  legal  effect  of  the  bill  ? 
On  the  contrary,  if  the  statements  in  the  subsequent  speeches  are  true,  what 
apology  do  those  senators  propose  to  make  to  the  Senate  and  country  for  hav 
ing  falsified  the  action  of  the  committee  in  a  document  over  their  own  signa 
tures,  and  thus  spread  a  false  alarm  among  the  people,  and  misled  the  public 
mind  in  respect  to  our  proceedings  ?  These  senators  cannot  avoid  the  one  or 
the  other  of  these  alternatives.  Let  them  seize  upon  either,  and  they  stand 
condemned  and  self-convicted;  in  the  one  case  by  their  manifesto,  and  in  the 
other  by  their  speeches. 

In  fact,  it  is  clear  that  they  have  understood  the  bill  to  mean  the  same  thing, 
and  to  have  the  same  legal  effect  in  whatever  phase  it  has  been  presented. 
When  first  introduced,  they  denounced  it  as  a  proposition  to  abrogate  the 
Missouri  restriction.  "When  amended,  they  repeated  they  same  denunciation, 
and  so  on  each  successive  amendment.  They  now  object  to  the  passage  of 
the  bill  for  the  same  reason,  thus  proving  conclusively  that  they  have  not  the 
least  faith  in  the  correctness  of  their  own  statements  in  respect  to  the  muta 
tions  and  changes  in  the  bill. 

They  seem  very  unwilling  to  meet  the  real  issue.  They  do  not  like  to 
discuss  the  principle.  There  seems  to  be  something  which  strikes  them  with 
terror  when  you  invite  their  attention  to  that  great  fundamental  principle  of 
popular  sovereignty.  Hence  you  find  that  all  the  memorials  they  have  pre 
sented  are  against  repealing  the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  in  favor  of  the  sanc 
tity  of  compacts — in  favor  of  preserving  plighted  faith.  The  senator  from 
Ohio  is  cautious  to  dedicate  his  speech  with  some  such  heading  as  "  Maintain 
Plighted  Faith."  The  object  is  to  keep  the  attention  of  the  people  as  far  as 
possible  from  the  principle  of  self-government  and  constitutional  rights. 

"Well,  sir,  what  is  this  Missouri  Compromise,  of  which  we  have  heard  so 
much  of  late  ?  It  has  been  read  so  often  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  occupy  the 
time  of  the  Senate  in  reading  it  again.  It  was  an  act  of  Congress,  passed  on 
the  6th  of  March,  1820,  to  authorize  the  people  of  Missouri  to  form  a  Constitu 
tion  and  a  state  government,  preparatory  to  the  admission  of  such  state  into 
the  Union.  The  first  section  provided  that  Missouri  should  be  received  into 
the  Union  "on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  states  in  all  respects  whatso 
ever."  The  last  and  eighth  section  provided  that  slavery  should  be  "  forever 
prohibited"  in  all  the  territories  which  had  been  acquired  from  Franco  North 
of  36°  30",  and  not  included  within  the  limits  of  the  State  of  Missouri.  There 
is  nothing  in  the  terms  of  the  law  that  purports  to  be  a  compact,  or  indicates 
that  it  was  any  thing  more  than  an  ordinary  act  of  legislation.  To  prove  that 
it  was  more  than  it  purports  to  be  on  its  face,  gentlemen  must  produce  other 
evidence,  and  prove  that  there  was  such  an  understanding  as  to  create  a  moral 
obligation  in  the  nature  of  a  compact.  Have  they  shown  it  ? 

I  have  heard  but  one  item  of  evidence  produced  during  this  whole  debate, 
and  that  was  a  short  paragraph  from  Niles's  Register,  published  a  few  days 
after  the  passage  of  the  act.  But  gentlemen  aver  that  it  was  a  solemn  com 
pact,  which  could  not  be  violated  or  abrogated  without  dishonor.  Accord 
ing  to  their  understanding,  the  contract  was  that,  in  consideration  of  the 
admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union,  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original 
states  in  all  respects  whatsoever,  slavery  should  be  prohibited  forever  in  the 
territories  North  of  36°  30'.  Now,  who  were  the  parties  to  this  alleged  com 
pact  ?  They  tell  us  that  it  was  a  stipulation  between  the  North  and  the  South. 
Sir,  I  know  of  no  such  parties  under  the  Constitution.  I  am  unwilling  that 
there  shall  be  any  such  parties  known  in  our  legislation.  If  there  is 


230  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A    DOUGLAS. 

such  a  geographical  line,  it  ought  to  be  obliterated  forever ;  and  there  should 
be  no  other  parties  than  those  provided  for  in  the  Constitution,  viz :  the 
States  of  this  Union.  These  are  the  only  parties  capable  of  contracting  under 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Now,  if  this  was  a  compact,  let  us  see  how  it  was  entered  into.  The  bill 
originated  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  passed  that  body  without  a 
southern  vote  in  its  favor.  It  is  proper  to  remark,  however,  that  it  did  not  at 
that  time  contain  the  eighth  section,  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  territories ; 
but,  in  lieu  of  it,  contained  a  provision  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  proposed 
State  of  Missouri.  In  the  Senate,  the  clause  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  state 
was  stricken  out,  and  the  eighth  section  added  to  the  end  of  the  bill,  by  the 
terms  of  which  slavery  was  to  be  forever  prohibited  in  the  territory  not  em 
braced  in  the  State  of  Missouri  north  of  36°  30'.  The  vote  on  adding  this 
section  stood,  in  the  Senate,  34  in  the  affirmative,  and  10  in  the  negative.  Of 
the  northern  senators,  20  voted  for  .it  and  2  against  it.  On  the  question  of 
ordering  the  bill  to  a  third  reading  as  amended,  which  was  the  test  vote  on 
its  passage,  the  vote  stood  24  yeas  and  20  nays.  Of  the  northern  senators,  4 
only  voted  in  the  affirmative,  and  18  in  the  negative.  Thus  it  will  be  seen 
that,  if  it  was  intended  to  be  a  compact,  the  North  never  agreed  to  it.  The 
northern  senators  voted  to  insert  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  territories ; 
and  then,  in  the  proportion  of  more  than  four  to  one,  voted  against  the  pas 
sage  of  the  bill.  The  North,  therefore,  never  signed  the  compact,  never  con 
sented  to  it,  never  agreed  to  be  bound  by  it.  This  fact  becomes  very  import 
ant  in  vindicating  the  character  of  the  North  for  repudiating  this  alleged  com 
promise  a  few  months  afterwards.  The  act  was  approved  and  became  a  law 
on  the  Gth  of  March,  1820.  In  the  summer  of  that  year,  the  people  of  Mis 
souri  formed  a  Constitution  and  state  government  preparatory  to  admission  in 
to  the  Union,  in  conformity  with  the  act.  At  the  next  session  of  Congress 
the  Senate  passed  a  joint  resolution,  declaring  Missouri  to  be  one  .of  the  states 
of  the  Union,  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  states.  This  resolution 
was  sent  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  where  it  was  rejected  by  northern 
votes,  and  thus  Missouri  was  voted  .out  of  the  Union,  instead  of  being  re 
ceived  into  the  Union  under  the  act  of  the  Gth  of  March,  1820,  now  known  as 
the  Missouri  Compromise.  Now,  sir,  what  becomes  of  our  plighted  faith,  if 
the  act  of  the  Gth  of  March,  1820,  was  a  solemn  compact,  as  we  are  now 
told  ?  They  have  all  rung  the  changes  upon  it,  that  it  was  a  sacred  and  irre 
vocable  compact,  binding  in  honor,  in  conscience,  and  morals,  which  could  not 
be  violated  or  repudiated  without  perfidy  and  dishonor !  The  two  senators 
from  Ohio,  [Mr.  Chase  and  Mr.  Wade,]  the  senator  from  Massachusetts,  [Mr. 
Sumner,]  the  senator  from  Connecticut,  [Mr.  Smith,]  the  senator  from  New 
York,  [Mr.  Seward,]  and  perhaps  others,  have  all  assumed  this  position. 

Mr.  Seward.     Will  the  senator  excuse  me  for  a  moment  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.     Certainly. 

Mr.  Seward.  Mr.  President,  I  have  foreseen  that  it  would  be  probable 
that  the  honorable  senator  from  Illinois  would  have  occasion  to  reply  to  many 
arguments  which  have  been  made  by  the  opponents  of  this  measure  ;  and  it 
would  seem,  therefore,  to  create  a  necessity,  on  the  part  of  the  opponents  of 
the  bill,  to  answer  his  arguments  afterwards.  Yet,  at  the  same  time,  meaning 
to  be  fan1,  and  desiring  to  have  no  such  advantage  as  the  last  word,  but  to 
leave  it  to  him,  to  whom  it  rightly  belongs,  I  had  proposed,  if  agreeable  to 
him,  when  he  should  state  anything  which  controverted  my  own  position,  to 
make  the  answer  during  his  speech,  instead  of  deferring  it  until  afterwards. 
To  me  the  last  word  is  never  of  any  advantage ;  but  I  know  that  it  is  to  him, 
and  ought  to  be  so  regarded  by  him.  I  have  a  word  to  say  here,  and  I  pro 
pose  to  say  another  word  at  another  time ;  but  if  it  be  at  all  uncomfortable  to 
the  senator,  I  will  reserve  what  I  have  to  say  until  after  he  concludes. 


THE   KANSAS-NEBRASKA   ACT.  231 

Mr.  Douglas.  If  it  will  take  but  a  minute,  I  will  yield  now ;  but  if  the 
senator  is  to  take  considerable  time,  I  prefer  to  go  on  myself. 

Mr.  Seward.  No,  sir,  I  make  no  long  speeches  anywhere ;  I  never  make 
a  long  speech,  and  therefore  I  would  prefer  saying  what  I  have  to  submit 
now,  if  the  honorable  senator  prefers  it. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Very  well. 

Mr.  Seward.  I  thought  he  would.  In  the  first  place,  I  find  that  the  hon 
orable  senator  is  coming  upon  my  own  ground  in  regard  to  compromises. 

Mr.  Douglas.  That  is  not  a  vindication  of  any  point  which  I  have  at 
tacked.  I  hope  the  honorable  senator  will  state  his  point. 

Mr.  Seward.  I  am  going  to  state  the  point,  or  I  will  state  nothing.  Who 
ever  will  refer  to  my  antecedents  will  find  that  in  the  year  1850  I  expressed 
opinions  on  the  subject  of  legislative  compromises  between  the  North  and 
South,  which,  at  that  day,  were  rejected  and  repudiated. 

Mr.  Douglas.  If  the  object  of  the  senator  is  to  go  back,  and  go  through  all 
his  opinions,  I  can  not  yield  the  floor  to  him ;  but  if  his  object  is  now  to 
show  that  the  North  did  not  violate  the  Missouri  Compromise,  I  will  yield. 

Mr.  Seward.  If  the  honorable  senator  will  allow  me  just  one  minute  and 
a  half,  without  dictating  what  I  shall  say  within  that  minute  and  a  half,  I 
shall  be  satisfied. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Certainly,  I  will  consent  to  tnat. 

Mr.  Seward.  I  find  that  the  honorable  senator  from  Illinois  is  standing 
upon  the  ground  upon  which  I  stood  in  1850.  I  have  nothing  to  say  now 
in  favor  of  that  ground.  On  this  occasion,  I  stand  upon  the  ground,  in  re 
gard  to  compromises,  which  has  been  adopted  by  the  country.  Then,  when 
the  senator  tells  me  that  the  North  did  not  altogether,  willingly,  and  unani 
mously,  consent  to  the  Compromise  of  1820,  I  agree  to  it;  but  I  have  been 
overborne  in  the  country,  on  the  ground  that  if  one  northern  man  carried 
with  him  a  majority  of  Congress  he  bound  the  whole  North.  And  so  I  hold 
in  regard  to  the  Compromise  of  1820,  that  it  was  carried  by  a  vote  which 
has  been  held  by  the  South  and  by  the  honorable  senator  from  Illinois  to 
bind  the  North.  The  South  having  received  their  consideration  and  equiva 
lent,  I  only  hold  him,  upon  his  own  doctrine  and  the  doctrine  of  the  South, 
bound  tf>  stand  to  it.  That  is  all  I  have  to  say  upon  that  point. 

A  few  words  more  will  cover  all  that  I  have  to  say  about  what  the  hon 
orable  senator  may  say  hereafter  as  to  the  North  repudiating  this  contract. 
When  I  was  absent,  I  understood  the  senator  alluded  to  the  fact  that  my 
name  appeared  upon  an  appeal  which  was  issued  by  the  honorable  senator 
from  Ohio,  and  some  other  members  of  Congress,  to  the  people,  on  the  sub 
ject  of  this  bill.  Upon  that  point  it  has  been  my  intention  throughout  to 
leave  to  the  honorable  senator  from  Illinois,  and  those  who  act  with  him, 
whatever  there  is  of  merit,  and  whatever  there  is  of  responsibility  for  the 
present  measure,  and  for  ah1  the  agitation  and  discussion  upon  it.  There 
fore,  as  soon  as  I  found,  when  I  returned  to  the  Capitol,  that  my  name  was 
on  that  paper,  I  caused  it  to  be  made  known  and  published,  as  fully  and  ex 
tensively  as  I  could,  that  I  had  never  been  consulted  in  regard  to  it ;  that  I 
know  nothing  about  it ;  and  that  the  merit  of  the  measure,  as  well  as  the 
responsibility,  belonged  to  the  honorable  senator  from  Ohio,  and  those  who 
cooperated  with  him ;  and  that  I  had  never  seen  the  paper  on  which  he 
commented ;  nor  have  I  in  any  way  addressed  the  public  upon  the  sub 
ject. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  wish  to  ask  the  senator  from  New  York  a  question.  If  I 
understood  his  remarks  when  he  spoke,  and  if  I  understand  his  speech  as 
published,  he  averred  that  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  a  compact  between 
the  North  and  the  South  ;  that  the  North  performed  it  on  its  part ;  that  it 
had  done  so  faithfully  for  thirty  years ;  that  the  South  had  received  all  its 


232  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

benefits,  and  the  moment  these  benefits  had  been  fully  realized,  the  South 
disavowed  the  obligations  under  which  it  had  received  them.  Is  not  that 
his  position  ? 

Mr.  Seward.  I  am  not  accustomed  to  answer  questions  put  to  me,  unless 
they  are  entirely  categorical,  and  placed  in  such  a  shape  that  I  may  know 
exactly,  and  have  time  to  consider,  their  whole  extent.  The  honorable  sen 
ator  from  Illinois  has  put  a  very  broad  question.  What  I  mean  to  say,  how 
ever,  and  that  will  answer  his  purpose,  is,  that  his  position,  and  that  the 
position  of  the  South  is,  that  this  was  a  compromise ;  and  I  say  that  the 
North  has  never  repudiated  that  compromise.  Indeed,  it  has  never  had  the 
power  to  do  so.  Missouri  came  into  the  Union,  and  Arkansas  came  into  the 
Union,  under  that  compromise ;  and  whatever  individuals  may  have  said, 
whatever  individuals,  more  or  less  humble  than  myself,  may  have  contended, 
the  practical  effect  is,  that  the  South  has  had  all  that  she  could  get  by  that 
compromise,  and  that  the  North  is  now  in  the  predicament  of  being  obliged  to 
defend  what  was  left  to  her.  I  believe  that  answers  the  question. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Now,  Mr.  President,  I  choose  to  bring  men  directly  up  to 
this  point.  The  senator  from  New  York  has  labored  in  his  whole  speech  to 
make  it  appear  that  this  was  a  compact ;  that  the  North  had  been  faithful ; 
and  that  the  South  acquiesced  until  she  got  all  its  advantages,  and  then  dis 
avowed  and  sought  to  annul  it.  This  he  pronounced  to  be  bad  faith ;  and 
he  made  appeals  about  dishonor.  The  senator  from  Connecticut  [Mr.  Smith] 
did  the  same  thing,  and  so  did  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Simmer], 
and  the  senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Chase].  That  is  the  great  point  to  which 
the  whole  abolition  party  are  now  directing  all  their  artillery  in  this  battle. 
Now,  I  propose  to  bring  them  to  the  point.  If  this  was  a  compact,  and 
if  what  they  have  said  is  fair,  or  just,  or  true,  who  was  it  that  repudiated 
the  compact  ? 

Mr.  Sumner.  Mr.  President,  the  senator  from  Illinois,  I  know,  does  not  in 
tend  to  misstate  my  position.  That  position,  as  announced  in  the  language 
of  the  speech  which  I  addressed  to  the  Senate,  and  which  I  now  hold  in  my 
hand,  is,  "  this  is  an  infraction  of  solemn  obligations,  assumed  beyond  recall 
by  the  South,  on  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union  as  a  slave  state;" 
which  was  one  year  after  the  act  of  1820. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  President,  I  shall  come  to  that ;  and  I  wish  to  see 
whether  this  was  an  obligation  which  was  assumed  "beyond  recall."  If  it 
was  a  compact  between  the  two  parties,  and  one  party  has  been  faithful, 
it  is  beyond  recall  by  the  other.  If,  however,  one  party  has  been  faithless, 
what  shall  we  think  of  them,  if,  while  faithless,  they  ask  a  performance  ? 

Mr.  Seward.     Show  it. 

Mr.  Douglas.  That  is  what  I  am  coming  to.  I  have  already  stated  that, 
at  the  next  session  of  Congress,  Missouri  presented  a  Constitution  in  conform 
ity  with  the  act  of  1820;  that  the  Senate  passed  a  joint  resolution  to  admit 
her ;  and  that  the  house  refused  to  admit  Missouri  in  conformity  with  the 
alleged  compact,  and,  I  think,  on  three  distinct  votes,  rejected  her. 

Mr.  Seward.  I  beg  my  honorable  friend,  for  I  desire  to  call  him  so,  to 
answer  me  frankly  whether  he  would  rather  I  should  say  what  I  have  to  say 
in  this  desultory  way,  or  whether  he  would  prefer  that  I  should  answer  him 
afterwards ;  because  it  is  with  me  a  rule  in  the  Senate  never  to  interrupt  a 
gentleman,  except  to  help  him  in  his  argument. 

Mr.  Douglas.    I  would  rather  hear  the  senator  now. 

Mr.  Seward.  "What  I  have  to  say  now,  and  I  acknowledge  the  magnani 
mity  of  the  senator  from  Illinois  in  allowing  me  to  say  it,  is,  that  the  North 
stood  by  that  compact  until  Missouri  came  in  with  a  Constitution,  one  article 
of  which  denied  to  colored  citizens  of  other  States  the  equality  of  privileges 
which  were  allowed  to  all  other  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  then  the 


THE   KANSAS-NEBRASKA   ACT.  233 

North  insisted  on  the  right  of  colored  men  to  be  regarded  as  citizens,  and  en 
titled  to  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens.  Upon  that  a  new  compro 
mise  was  necessary.  I  hope  I  am  candid. 

Mr.  Douglas.  The  senator  is  candid,  I  have  no  doubt,  as  he  understands 
the  facts ;  but  I  undertake  to  maintain  that  the  North  objected  to  Missouri 
because  she  allowed  slavery,  and  not  because  of  the  free-negro  clause  alone. 

Mr.  Seward.    No,  sir. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Now  I  will  proceed  to  prove  that  the  North  did  not  object, 
solely  on  account  of  the  free-negro  clause ;  but  that,  in  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  at  that  time,  the  North  objected  as  well  because  of  slavery  as  in 
regard  to  free  negroes.  Here  is  the  evidence.  In  the  House  of  Representa 
tives,  on  the  12th  of  February,  1821,  Mr.  Mallory,  of  Yermont,  moved  to 
amend  the  Senate  joint  resolution  for  the  admission  of  Missouri,  as  follows : 

"  To  amend  the  said  amendment,  by  striking  out  all  thereof  after  the  word 
respects,  and  inserting  the  following :  '  Whenever  the  people  of  the  said  State, 
by  a  convention,  appointed  according  to  the  manner  provided  by  the  act  to 
authorize  the  people  of  Missouri  to  form  a  Constitution  and  state  government, 
and  for  the  admission  of  such  state  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with 
the  original  states,  and  to  prohibit  slavery  in  certain  territories,  approved 
March  6,  1820,  adopt  a  Constitution  conformably  to  the  provisions  of  said  act, 
and  shall,  IN  ADDITION  to  said  provision,  further  provide,  in  and  by  said  Con 
stitution,  that  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  shall  ever  be  allowed  in 
said  Stale  of  Missouri,  unless  inflicted  as  a  punishment  for  crimes  committed 
against  the  laws  of  said  State,  whereof  the  party  accused  shall  be  duly  con 
victed  :  Provided,  That  the  civil  condition  of  those  persons  who  now  are  held 
to  service  in  Missouri  shall  not  be  affected  by  this  last  provision." 

Here  I  show,  then,  that  the  proposition  was  made  that  Missouri  should 
not  come  in  unless,  in  addition  to  complying  with  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
she  would  go  further,  and  prohibit  slavery  within  the  limits  of  the  state. 

Mr.  Seward.     Now,  then,  for  the  vote. 

Mr.  Douglas.  The  vote  was  taken  by  yeas  and  nays.  I  hold  it  in  my 
hand.  Sixty-one  northern  men  voted  for  that  amendment,  and  thirty-three 
against  it.  Thus  the  North,  by  a  vote  of  nearly  two  to  one,  expressly  repu 
diated  a  solemn  compact  upon  the  very  matter  in  controversy,  to  wit :  that 
slavery  should  not  be  prohibited  in  the  State  of  Missouri. 

Mr.  Wetter.     Let  the  senator  from  New  York  answer  that. 

Mr.  Douglas.     I  should  like  to  hear  his  answer. 

Mr.  Seward.  I  desire,  if  I  shall  be  obtrusive  by  speaking  in  this  way, 
that  senators  will  at  once  signify,  or  that  any  senator  will  signify,  that  I  am 
obtrusive.  But  I  make  these  explanations  in  this  way,  for  the  reason  that  I 
desire  to  give  the  honorable  senator  from  Illinois  the  privilege  of  hearing  my 
answer  to  him  as  he  goes  along.  It  is  simply  this :  That  this  doctrine  of  com 
promises  is,  as  it  has  been  held,  that  if  so  many  northern  men  shall  go  with 
so  many  southern  men  as  to  fix  the  law,  then  it  binds  the  North  and  South 
alike.  I  therefore  have  but  one  answer  to  make :  that  the  vote  for  the  restric 
tion  was  less  than  the  northern  vote  which  was  given  against  the  whole  com 
promise. 

Mr.  Douglas.  "Well,  now,  we  come  to  this  point:  "We  have  been  told, 
during  this  debate,  that  you  must  not  judge  of  the  North  by  the  minority,  but 
by  her  majority.  You  have  been  told  that  the  minority,  who  stood  by  the 
Constitution  and  the  rights  of  the  South,  were  dough-faces. 

Mr.  Seward.     I  have  not  said  so.     I  will  not  say  so. 

Mr.  Douglas.  You  have  all  said  so  in  your  speeches,  and  you  have  asked 
us  to  take  the  majority  of  the  North. 

Mr.  Seward.  I  spoke  of  the  practical  fact.  I  never  said  anything  about 
dough-faces. 


234  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

Mr.  Douglas.  You  have  asked  us  to  take  the  majority  instead  of  the  minority. 

Mr.  Seward.    The  majority  of  the  country. 

Mr.  Douglas.     I  am  talking  of  the  majority  of  the  northern  vote. 

Mr.  Seward.     No,  sir. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  hope  the  senator  will  hear  me.  I  wish  to  recall  him  to 
the  issue.  I  stated  that  the  North  in  the  House  of  Representatives  voted 
against  admitting  Missouri  into  the  Union  under  the  act  of  1820,  and  caused 
the  defeat  of  that  measure;  and  he  said  that  they  voted  against  it  on  the 
ground  of  the  free-negro  clause  in  her  Constitution,  and  not  upon  the  ground 
of  slavery.  Now,  I  have  shown  by  the  evidence  that  it  was  upon  the  ground 
of  slavery,  as  well  as  upon  the  other  ground ;  and  that  a  majority  of  the  North 
required  not  only  that  Missouri  should  comply  with  the  compact  of  1820,  so 
called,  but  that  she  should  go  further,  and  give  up  the  whole  consideration 
which  the  senator  says  the  South  received  from  the  North  for  the  Missouri 
Compromise.  The  compact,  he  says,  was  that  in  consideration  of  slavery 
being  permitted  in  Missouri,  it  should  be  prohibited  in  the  territories.  After 
having  procured  the  prohibition  in  the  territories,  the  North,  by  a  majority 
of  her  votes,  refused  to  admit  Missouri  as  a  slaveholding  state,  and,  in  viola 
tion  of  the  alleged  compact,  required  her  to  prohibit  slavery  as  a  further  con 
dition  of  her  admission.  This  repudiation  of  the  alleged  compact  by  the  North 
is  recorded  by  yeas  and  nays,  sixty-one  to  thirty-three,  and  entered  upon  the 
Journal,  as  an  imperishable  evidence  of  the  fact.  With  this  evidence  before 
us,  against  whom  should  the  charge  of  perfidy  be  preferred? 

Sir,  if  this  was  a  compact,  what  must  be  thought  of  those  who  violated  it 
almost  immediately  after  it  was  formed  ?  I  say  it  was  a  calumny  upon  the 
North  to  say  that  it  was  a  compact.  I  should  feel  a  flush  of  shame  upon  my 
cheek,  as  a  northern  man,  if  I  were  to  say  that  it  was  a  compact,  and  that 
the  section  of  country  to  which  I  belong  received  the  consideration,  and 
then  repudiated  the  obligation  in  eleven  months  after  it  was  entered  into.  I 
deny  that  it  was  a  compact  in  any  sense  of  the  term.  But  if  it  was,  the 
record  proves  that  faith  was  not  observed ;  that  the  contract  was  never  car 
ried  into  effect ;  that  after  the  North  had  procured  the  passage  of  the  act 
prohibiting  slavery  in  the  territories,  with  a  majority  in  the  house  large 
enough  to  prevent  its  repeal,  Missouri  was  refused  admission  into  the  Union 
as  a  slaveholding  state,  in  conformity  with  the  act  of  March  6,  1820.  If  the 
proposition  be  correct,  as  contended  for  by  the  opponents  of  this  bill,  that 
there  was  a  solemn  compact  between  the  North  and  South  that,  in  consider 
ation  of  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  territories,  Missouri  was  to  be  ad 
mitted  into  the  Union  in  conformity  with  the  act  of  1820,  that  compact  was 
repudiated  -by  the  North  and  rescinded  by  the  joint  action  of  the  two  parties 
within  twelve  months  from  its  date.  Missouri  was  never  admitted  under  the 
act  of  the  6th  of  March,  1820.  She  was  refused  admission  under  that  act. 
She  was  voted  out  of  the  Union  by  northern  votes,  notwithstanding  the  stip 
ulation  that  she  should  bo  received ;  and^  in  consequence  of  these  facts,  a 
new  compromise  was  rendered  necessary,  by  the  terms  of  which  Missouri 
was  to  be  admitted  into  the  Union  conditionally — admitted  on  a  condition 
not  embraced  in  the  act  of  1820,  and,  in  addition,  to  a  full  compliance  with 
all  the  provisions  of  said  act.  If,  then,  the  act  of  1820,  by  the  eighth  section 
of  which  slavery  was  prohibited  in  the  territories,  was  a  compact,  it  is  clear 
to  the  comprehension  of  every  fair-minded  man  that  the  refusal  of  the  North 
to  admit  Missouri,  in  compliance  with  its  stipulations,  and  without  further 
conditions,  imposes  upon  us  a  high  moral  obligation  to  remove  the  prohibi 
tion  of  slavery  in  the  territories,  since  it  has  been  shown  to  have  been  pro 
cured  upon  a  condition  never  performed. 

Mr.  President,  in  as  much  as  the  senator  from  New  York  has  taken  great 
pains  to  impress  upon  the  public  mind  of  the  North  the  conviction  that  the 


THE   KANSAS-NEBRASKA    ACT.  235 

act  of  1820  was  a  solemn  compact,  the  violation  or  repudiation  of  which  by 
either  party  involves  perfidy  and  dishonor,  I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of 
that  senator  (Mr.  Seward)  to  the  fact  that  his  own  state  was  the  first  to  re 
pudiate  the  compact  and  to  instruct  her  senators  in  Congress  not  to  admit 
Missouri  into  the  Union  in  compliance  with  it,  nor  unless  slavery  should  be 
prohibited  in  the  State  of  Missouri. 

Mr.  Seward.     That  is  so. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  have  the  resolutions  before  me,  in  the  printed  Journal  of 
the  Senate.  The  senator  from  New  York  is  familiar  with  the  fact,  and 
frankly  admits  it : 

"  STATE  OF  NEW  YORK,  ) 

"  IN  ASSEMBLY,  November  13,  1820.    f 

"  "Whereas,  the  legislature  of  this  state,  at  the  last  session,  did  instruct 
their  senators  and  request  their  representatives  in  Congress  to  oppose  the 
admission,  as  a  state,  into  the  Union,  of  any  territory  not  comprised  within 
the  original  boundaries  of  the  United  States,  without  making  the  prohibition 
of  slavery  therein  an  indispensable  condition  of  admission ;  and  whereas 
this  legislature  is  impressed  with  the  correctness  of  the  sentiments  so  com 
municated  to  our  senators  and  representatives :  Therefore, 

"Resolved  (if  the  honorable  the  Senate  concur  herein),  That  this  legislature 
does  approve  of  the  principles  contained  in  the  resolutions  of  the  last  session ; 
and  further,  if  the  provisions  contained  in  any  proposed  Constitution  of  a  new 
state  deny  to  any  citizens  of  the  existing  states,  the  privileges  and  immuni 
ties  of  citizens  of  such  new  state,  that  such  proposed  Constitution  should  not 
be  accepted  or  confirmed ;  the  same,  in  the  opinion  of  this  legislature,  being 
void  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  And  that  our  senators  be  in 
structed,  and  our  representatives  in  Congress  be  requested,  to  use  their  ut 
most  exertions  to  prevent  the  acceptance  and  confirmation  of  any  such  Con 
stitution." 

It  will  be  seen  by  these  resolutions  that  at  the  previous  session  the  New 
York  Legislature  had  "  instructed"  the  senators  from  that  state  "  TO  OPPOSE 

THE    ADMISSION,  AS  A  STATE,  INTO   THE   UNION  OF  ANY  TERRITORY  not   COm- 

prised  within  the  original  boundaries  of  the  United  States,  WITHOUT  MAKING 

THE  PROHIBITION  OF  SLAVERY  THEREIN  AN  INDISPENSABLE  CONDITION  OF  AD 
MISSION." 

These  instructions  are  not  confined  to  territory  North  of  36°  30'.  They 
apply,  and  were  intended  to  apply,  to  the  whole  country  West  of  the  Missis 
sippi,  and  to  all  territory  which  might  hereafter  be  acquired.  They  deny 
the  right  of  Arkansas  to  admission  as  a  slaveholding  state,  as  well  as  Mis 
souri.  They  lay  down  a  general  principle  to  be  applied  and  insisted  upon 
everywhere,  and  in  all  cases,  and  under  all  circumstances.  These. resolutions 
were  first  adopted  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  March  6, 1820,  which  the 
senator  now  chooses  to  call  a  compact.  But  they  were  renewed  and  repeated 
on  the  13th  of  November,  1820,  a  little  more  than  eight  months  after  the. 
adoption  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  as  instructions  to  the  New  York  sen 
ators  to  resist  the  admission  of  Missouri  as  a  slaveholding  state,  notwith 
standing  the  stipulations  in  the  alleged  compact.  Now,  let  me  ask  the  sen 
ator  from  New  York  by  what  authority  he  declared  and  published  in  his 
speech  that  the  act  of  1820  was  a  compact  which  could  not  be  violated  or 
repudiated  without  a  sacrifice  of  honor,  justice,  and  good  faith.  Perhaps  he 
will  shelter  himself  behind  the  resolutions  of  his  state,  which  ho  presented 
this  session,  branding  this  bill  as  a  violation  of  plighted  faith. 

Mr.  Seward.     Will  the  senator  allow  mo  a  word  of  explanation  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.     Certainly,  with  a  great  deal  of  pleasure. 

Mr.  Seward.  I  wish  simply  to  say  that  the  State  of  New  York,  for  now 
thirty  years,  has  refused  to  make  any  compact  on  any  terms  by  which  a  con- 


236  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

cession  should  be  made  for  the  extension  of  slavery.  But,  by  the  practical 
action  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  compromises  have  been  made, 
which,  it  is  held  by  the  honorable  senator  from  Illinois  and  by  the  South, 
bind  her  against  her  consent  and  approval.  And  therefore  she  stands 
throughout  this  whole  matter  upon  the  same  ground — always  refusing  to 
enter  into  a  compromise,  always  insisting  upon  the  prohibition  of  slavery 
within  the  Territories  of  the  United  States.  But,  on  this  occasion,  we  stand 
here  with  a  contract  which  has  stood  for  thirty  years,  notwithstanding  our 
protest  and  dissent,  and  in  which  there  is  nothing  left  to  be  fulfilled  except 
that  part  which  is  to  be  beneficial  to  us.  All  the  rest  has  been  fulfilled,  and 
we  stand  here  with  our  old  opinions  on  the  whole  subject  of  compromises, 
demanding  fulfillment  on  the  part  of  the  South,  which  the  honorable  sena 
tor  from  Illinois  on  the  present  occasion  represents. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  President,  the  senator  undoubtedly  speaks  for  himself 
very  frankly  and  very  candidly. 

Mr.  Seward.     Certainly  I  do. 

Mr.  Douglas.  But  I  deny  that  on  this  point  he  speaks  for  the  State  of 
New  York. 

Mr.  Seward.    "We  shall  see. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  will  state  the  reason  why  I  say  so.  He  has  presented 
here  resolutions  of  the  State  of  New  York  which  have  been  adopted  this 
year,  declaring  the  act  of  March  6,  1820,  to  be  a  "  solemn  compact." 

I  read  from  the  second  resolution : 

"  But  at  the  same  time  duty  to  themselves  and  to  the  other  states  of  the 
Union  demands  that  when  an  effort  is  making  to  violate  a  solemn  compact, 
whereby  the  political  power  of  the  state  and  the  privileges  as  well  as  the 
honest  sentiments  of  its  citizens  will  be  jeoparded  and  invaded,  they  should 
raise  their  voice  in  protest  against  the  threatened  infraction  of  their  rights, 
and  declare  that  the  negation  or  repeal  by  Congress  of  the  Missouri  compro 
mise  will  be  regarded  by  them  as  a  violation  of  right  and  of  faith,  and  de 
structive  of  that  confidence  and  regard  which  should  attach  to  the  enact 
ments  of  the  federal  legislature." 

Mr.  President,  I  cannot  let  the  senator  off  on  the  plea  that  I,  for  the  sake 
of  the  argument,  in  reply  to  him  and  other  opponents  of  this  bill,  have  called 
it  a  compact ;  or  that  the  South  have  called  it  a  compact ;  or  that  other 
friends  of  Nebraska  have  called  it  a  compact  which  has  been  violated  and 
rendered  invalid.  He  and  his  abolition  confederates  have  arraigned  me  for  a 
violation  of  a  compact  which,  they  say,  is  binding  in  morals,  in  conscience, 
and  honor.  I  have  shown  that  the  legislature  of  New  York,  at  its  present 
session,  has  declared  it  to  be  "  a  solemn  compact,"  and  that  its  repudiation 
would  "  be  regarded  by  them  as  a  violation  of  right  and  of  faith,  and  destruc 
tive  of  confidence  and  regard."  I  have  also  shown  that  if  it  be  such  a  com 
pact,  the  State  of  New  York  stands  self-condemned  and  self-convicted  as  the 
first  to  repudiate  and  violate  it. 

But  since  the  senator  has  chosen  to  make  an  issue  with  me  in  respect  to 
the  action  of  New  York,  with  the  view  of  condemning  my  conduct  here,  I 
will  invite  the  attention  of  the  senator  to  another  portion  of  these  resolutions. 
Eeferring  to  the  fourteenth  section  of  the  Nebraska  Bill,  the  Legislature  of 
New  York  says : 

"  That  the  adoption  of  this  provision  would  be  in  derogation  of  the  truth, 
a  gross  violation  of  plighted  faith,  and  an  outrage  and  indignity  upon  the 
free  states  of  the  Union,  whose  assent  has  been  yielded  to  the  admission  into 
the  Union  of  Missouri  and  of  Arkansas,  with  slavery,  in  reliance  upon  the 
faithful  observance  of  the  provision  (now  sought  to  be  abrogated)  known 
as  the  Missouri  compromise,  whereby  slavery  was  declared  to  be  "  for  ever 


THE   KANSAS-NEBRASKA    ACT.  237 

prohibited  iu  all  that  territory  ceded  by  France  to  the  United  States,  undei 
the  name  of  Louisiana,  which  lies  North  of  36°  30'  North  latitude,  not  in 
cluded  within  the  limits  of  the  State  of  Missouri." 

I  have  no  comments  to  mako  upon  the  courtesy  and  propriety  exhibited 
in  this  legislative  declaration,  that  a  provision  in  a  bill,  reported  by  a  regu 
lar  committee  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  known  to  be  approved 
by  three-fourths  of  the  body,  and  which  has  since  received  the  sanction  of 
their  votes,  is  "in  derogation  of  truth,  a  gross  violation  of  plighted  faith,  and 
an  outrage  and  indignity,"  etc.  The  opponents  of  this  measure  claim  a  mono 
poly  of  all  the  courtesies  and  amenities  which  should  be  observed  among 
gentlemen,  and  especially  in  the  performance  of  official  duties  ;  and  I  am  free 
to  say  that  this  is  one  of  the  mildest  and  most  respectful  forms  of  expression 
in  which*  they  have  indulged.  But  there  is  a  declaration  in  this  resolution  to 
which  I  wish  to  invite  the  particular  attention  of  the  Senate  and  the  country. 
It  is  the  distinct  allegation  that  "  the  free  states  of  the  Union,"  including  New 
York,  yielded  their  "  assent  to  the  admission  into  the  Union  of  Missouri  and 
Arkansas,  with  slavery,  in  reliance  upon  the  faithful  observance  of  the  pro 
vision  known  as  the  Missouri  Compromise." 

Now,  sir,  since  the  Legislature  of  New  York  has  gone  out  of  its  way  to 
arraign  the  state  on  matters  of  truth,  I  will  demonstrate  that  this  paragraph 
contains  two  material  statements  in  direct  "  derogation  of  truth."  I  have  al 
ready  shown,  beyond  controversy,  by  the  records  of  the  Legislature  and  by  the 
Journals  of  the  Senate,  that  New  York  never  did  give  her  assent  to  the  ad 
mission  of  Missouri  with  slavery !  Hence,  I  must  be  permitted  to  say,  in  the 
polite  language  of  her  own  resolutions,  that  the  statement  that  New  York 
yielded  her  assent  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  with  slavery  is  in  "  derogation 
of  truth!"  and  secondly,  the  statement  that  such  assent  was  given  "in  reli 
ance  upon  the  faithful  observance  of  the  Missouri  compromise"  is  equally  "  in 
derogation  of  truth."  New  York  never  assented  to  the  admission  of  Missouri 
as  a  slave  state,  never  assented  to  what  she  now  calls  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise,  never  observed  its  stipulations  as  a  compact,  never  has  been  willing  to 
carry  it  out ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  has  always  resisted  it,  as  I  have  demon 
strated  by  her  own  records. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  before  me  other  journals,  records,  and  instructions, 
which  prove  that  New  York  was  not  the  only  free  state  that  repudiated  the 
Missouri  Compromise  of  1820,  within  twelve  months  from  its  date.  I  will 
not  occupy  the  time  of  the  Senate  at  this  late  hour  of  the  night  by  referring 
to  them,  unless  some  opponent  of  the  bill  renders  it  necessary.  In  that 
event,  I  may  be  able  to  place  other  senators  and  their  states  in  the  same  un 
enviable  position  hi  which  the  senator  from  New  York  has  found  himself 
and  his  state. 

I  think  I  have  shown,  that  to  call  the  act  of  the  6th  of  March,  1820,  a  com 
pact,  binding  in  honor,  is  to  charge  the  northern  States  of  this  Union  with 
an  act  of  perfidy  unparalelled  hi  the  history  of  legislation  or  of  civilization.  I 
have  already  adverted  to  the  facts,  that  in  the  summer  of  1820  Missouri 
formed  her  Constitution,  in  conformity  with  the  act  of  the  6th  of  March  ;  that 
it  was  presented  to  Congress  at  the  next  session ;  that  the  Senate  passed  a 
joint  resolution  declaring  her  to  be  one  of  the  states  of  the  Union,  on  an  equal 
footing  with  the  original  states  ;  and  that  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  re 
jected  it,  and  refused  to  allow  her  to  come  into  the  Union,  because  her  Con 
stitution  did  not  prohibit  slavery. 

These  facts  created  the  necessity  for  a  new  compromise,  the  old  one  having 
failed  of  its  object,  which  was  to  bring  Missouri  into  the  Union.  At  this 
period  in  the  order  of  events — in  February,  1821,  when  the  excitement  was 
almost  beyond  restraint,  and  a  great  fundamental  principle,  involving  the  right 
of  the  people  of  the-  new  states  to  regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions, 


238  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

was  dividing  the  Union  into  two  great  hostile  parties — Henry  Clay,  of  Ken 
tucky,  came  forward  with  a  new  compromise,  which  had  the  effect  to  change 
the  issue,  and  make  the  result  of  the  controversy  turn  upon  a  different  point. 
He  brought  hi  a  resolution  for  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union,  not 
in  pursuance  of  the  act  of  1820,  not  in  obedience  to  the  understanding  when 
it  was  adopted,  and  not  with  her  Constitution  as  it  had  been  formed  in  con 
formity  with  that  act,  but  he  proposed  to  admit  Missouri  into  the  Union  upon 
a  "  fundamental  condition,"  which  condition  was  to  be  hi  the  nature  of  a 
solemn  compact  between  the  United  States  on  the  one  part  and  the  State  of 
Missouri  on  the  other  part,  and  to  which  "fundamental  condition"  the  State 
of  Missouri  was  required  to  declare  her  assent  in  the  form  of  "  a  solemn  pub 
lic  act."  This  joint  resolution  passed,  and  was  approved  March  2,  1821,  and 
is  known  as  Mr.  Clay's  Missouri  compromise,  in  contradistinction  to  that  of  1820, 
which  was  introduced  into  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Thomas,  of  Illinois.  In  the 
month  of  June,  1821,  the  legislature  of  Missouri  assembled  and  passed  the 
"solemn  public  act,"  and  furnished  an  authenticated  copy  thereof  to  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  in  compliance  with  Mr.  Clay's  compromise,  or 
joint  resolution.  On  August  10,  1821,  James  Monroe,  President  of  the 
United  States,  issued  his  proclamation,  in  which,  after  reciting  the  fact  that  on 
the  2d  of  March,  1821,  Congress  had  passed  a  joint  resolution  "  providing  for 
the  admission  of  the  State  of  Missouri  into  the  Union,  on  a  certain  condition ;" 
and  that  the  general  assembly  of  Missouri,  on  the  26th  of  June,  having,  "by 
a  solemn  public  act,  declared  the  assent  of  said  State  of  Missouri  to  the  fun 
damental  condition  contained  in  said  joint  resolution,"  and  having  furnished 
him  with  an  authenticated  copy  thereof,  he,  "  in  pursuance  of  tJie  resolution  of 
Congress  aforesaid,"  declared  the  admission  of  Missouri  to  be  complete. 

I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  discuss  the  question  whether  the  conditions 
upon  which  Missouri  was  admitted  were  wise  or  unwise.  It  is  sufficient  for 
my  present  purpose  to  remark,  that  the  "fundamental  condition"  of  her  ad 
mission  related  to  certain  clauses  in  the  Constitution  of  Missouri  in  respect  to 
the  migration  of  free  negroes  into  that  state ;  clauses  similar  to  those  now 
in  force  in  the  Constitutions  of  Illinois  and  Indiana,  and  perhaps  other  states; 
clauses  similar  to  the  provisions  of  law  hi  force  at  that  time  in  many  of  the 
old  states  of  the  Union ;  and,  I  will  add,  clauses  which,  in  my  opinion,  Mis 
souri  had  a  right  to  adopt  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  It  is 
no  answer  to  this  position  to  say.  that  those  clauses  in  the  Constitution  of  Mis 
souri  were  in  violation  of  the  Constitution.  If  they  did  conflict  with  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States,  they  were  void ;  if  they  were  not  in  conflict, 
Missouri  had  a  right  to  put  them  there,  and  to  pass  all  laws  necessary  to 
carry  them  into  effect.  Whether  such  conflict  did  exist  is  a  question  which, 
by  the  Constitution,  can  only  be  determined  authoritatively  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States.  Congress  is  not  the  appropriate  and  competent  tribu 
nal  to  adjudicate  and  determine  questions  of  conflict  between  the  Constitution 
of  a  state  and  that  of  the  United  States.  Had  Missouri  been  admitted  with 
out  any  condition  or  restriction,  she  would  have  had  an  opportunity  of  vindi 
cating  her  Constitution  and  rights  hi  the  Supreme  Court — the  tribunal  created 
by  the  Constitution  for  that  purpose. 

By  the  condition  imposed  on  Missouri,  Congress  not  only  deprived  that 
state  of  a  right  which  she  believed  she  possessed  under  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  but  denied  her  the  privilege  of  vindicating  that  right  in 
the  appropriate  and  constitutional  tribunals,  by  compelling  her,  "  by  a  solemn 
public  act,"  to  give  an  irrevocable  pledge  never  to  exercise  or  claim  the  right. 
Therefore  Missouri  came  under  a  humiliating  condition — a  condition  not  im 
posed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  which  destroys  the  prin 
ciple  of  equality  which  should  exist,  and  by  the  Constitution  does  exist,  be 
tween  all  the  States  of  this  Union.  This  inequality  resulted  from  Mr.  Clay's 


THE   KANSAS-NEBKASKA   ACT.  239 

compromise  of  1821,  and  is  the  principle  upon  which  that  compromise  was 
constructed.  I  own  that  the  act  is  couched  in  general  terms  and  vague 
phrases,  and  therefore  may  possibly  be  so  construed  as  not  to  deprive  the 
state  of  any  right  she  might  possess  under  the  Constitution.  Upon  that  point 
I  wish  only  to  say,  that  such  a  construction  makes  the  "fundamental  condi 
tion"  void,  while  the  opposite  construction  would  demonstrate  it  to  be  uncon 
stitutional.  I  have  before  me  the  "  solemn  public  act"  of  Missouri  to  this 
fundamental  condition.  Whoever  will  take  the  trouble  to  read  it  will  find  it 
the  richest  specimen  of  irony  and  sarcasm  that  has  ever  been  incorporated  in 
to  a  solemn  public  act. 

Sir,  in  view  of  these  facts  I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  senator  from 
New  York  to  a  statement  hi  his  speech,  upon  which  the  greater  part  of  his 
argument  rested.  His  statement  was,  and  it  is  now  being  published  in  every 
abolition  paper,  and  repeated  by  the  whole  tribe  of  abolition  orators  and  lec 
turers,  that  Missouri  was  admitted  as  a  slaveholding  state,  under  the  act  of 
1820;  while  I  have  shown,  by  the  President's  proclamation  of  August  10, 
1821,  that  she  was  admitted  in  pursuance  of  the  resolution  of  March  2,  1821. 
Thus  it  is  shown  that  the  material  point  of  his  speech  is  contradicted  by  the 
highest  evidence — the  record  in  the  case.  The  same  statement,  I  believe, 
was  made  by  the  senator  from  Connecticut,  (Mr.  Smith,)  and  the  senators 
from  Ohio,  (Mr.  Chase  and  Mr.  "Wade,)  and  the  senator  from  Massachusetts, 
(Mr.  Sumner.)  Each  of  these  senators  made  and  repeated  this  statement, 
and  upon  the  strength  of  this  erroneous  assertion  called  upon  us  to  carry  in 
to  effect  the  eighth  section  of  the  same  act.  This  material  fact  upon  which 
their  arguments  rested  being  overthrown,  of  course  their  conclusions  are  er 
roneous  and  deceptive. 

Mr.  Seward.  I  hope  the  senator  will  yield  for  a  moment,  because  I  have 
never  had  so  much  respect  for  him  as  I  have  to-night. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  see  what  course  I  have  to  pursue  in  order  to  command  the 
senator's  respect.  I  know  now  how  to  get  it.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Seward.  Any  man  who  meets  me  boldly  commands  my  respect.  I  say 
that  Missouri  would  not  have  been  admitted  at  all  into  the  Union  by  the 
United  States  except  upon  the  compromise  of  1820.  When  that  point  was 
settled  about  the  restriction  of  slavery,  it  was  settled  in  this  way :  that  she 
should  come  in  with  slavery,  and  that  all  the  rest  of  the  Louisiana  purchase, 
which  is  now  known  as  Nebraska,  should  be  forever  free  from  slavery.  Mis 
souri  adopted  a  Constitution,  which  was  thought  by  the  northern  states  to  in 
fringe  upon  the  right  of  citizenship  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  which  was  a  new  point  altogether ;  and  upon  that  point  debate 
was  held,  and  upon  it  a  new  compromise  was  made,  and  Missouri  came  into 
the  Union  upon  the  agreement  that,  in  regard  to  that  question,  she  Submitted 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  so  she  was  admitted  into  the 
Union. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  President,  I  must  remind  the  senator  again  that  I  have 
already  proven  that  he  was  in  error  in  stating  that  the  North  objected  to  the 
admission  of  Missouri  merely  on  account  of  the  free-negro  clause  in  her  Con 
stitution.  I  have  proven  by  the  vote  that  the  North  objected  to  her  admis 
sion  because  she  tolerated  slavery ;  this  objection  was  sustained  by  the  North 
by  a  vote  of  nearly  two  to  one.  He  cannot  shelter  himself,  therefore,  under 
the  free-negro  dodge,  so  long  as  there  is  a  distinct  vote  of  the  North  objecting 
to  her  admission;  because,  in  addition  to  complying  with  the  act  of  1820,  she 
did  not  also  prohibit  slavery,  which  was  the  only  consideration  that  the  South 
was  to  have  for  agreeing  to  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  territories.  Then, 
having  deprived  the  senator,  by  conclusive  evidence  from  the  records,  of  that 
pretext,  what  do  I  drive  him  to  7  I  compel  him  to  acknowledge  that  a  new 
compromise  was  made. 


240  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS. 

Mr.  Seward.  Certainly  there  was. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Then,  I  ask,  why  was  it  made  ?  Because  the  North  would 
not  carry  out  the  first  one.  And  the  best  evidence  that  the  North  did  not 
carry  out  the  first  one  is  the  senator's  admission  that  the  South  was  compel 
led  to  submit  to  a  new  one.  Then,  if  there  was  a  new  compromise  made,  did 
Missouri  come  in  under  the  new  one  or  the  old  one  ? 

Mr.  Seward.  Under  both. 

Mr.  Douglas.  This  is  the  first  time,  in  this  debate,  it  has  been  intimated 
that  Missouri  came  in  under  two  acts  of  Congress.  The  senator  did  not  allude 
to  the  resolution  of  1821  in  his  speech ;  none  of  the  opponents  of  this  bill  have 
said  it  But  it  is  now  admitted  that  she  did  not  come  into  the  Union  under 
the  act  of  1820  alone.  She  had  been  voted  out  under  the  first  compromise, 
and  this  vote  compelled  her  to  make  a  new  one,  and  she  came  in  under  the 
new  one ;  and  yet  the  senator  from  New  York,  in  his  speech,  declared  to  the 
world  that  she  came  in  under  the  first  one.  This  is  not  an  immaterial  ques 
tion.  His  whole  speech  rests  upon  that  misapprehension  or  misstatement  of 
the  record. 

Mr.  Sewftrd.  You  had  better  say  misapprehension. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Very  well.  We  will  call  it  by  that  name.  His  whole  argu 
ment  depends  upon  that  misapprehension.  After  stating  that  the  act  of  1820 
was  a  compact,  and  that  the  North  performed  its  part  of  it  in  good  faith,  he 
arraigns  the  friends  of  this  bill  for  proposing  to  annul  the  eighth  section  of  the 
act  of  1820  without  first  turning  Missouri  out  of  the  Union,  in  order  that 
slavery  may  be  abolished  therein  by  the  act  of  Congress.  He  says  to  us,  in 
substance:  "Gentlemen,  if  you  are  going  to  rescind  the  compact,  have  respect 
for  that  great  law  of  morals,  of  honesty,  and  of  conscience,  which  compels  you 
first  to  surrender  the  consideration  which  which  you  have  received  '  under  the 
compact.'  "  I  concur  with  him  in  regard  to  the  obligation  to  restore  the  con 
sideration  when  a  contract  is  rescinded.  And,  inasmuch  as  the  prohibition  ha 
the  territories  North  of  36°  30'  was  obtained,  according  to  his  own  statement, 
by  an  agreement  to  admit  Missouri  as  a  slaveholding  state  on  an  equal  footing 
with  the  original  states,  "in  all  respects  whatsoever,"  as  specified  in  the  first 
section  of  the  act  of  1820 ;  and,  inasmuch  as  Missouri  was  refused  admission 
under  said  act,  and  was  compelled  to  submit  to  a  new  compromise  in  1821, 
and  was  then  received  into  the  Union  on  a  fundamental  condition  of  inequali 
ty,  I  call  on  him  and  his  abolition  confederates  to  restore  the  consideration 
which  they  have  received,  in  the  shape  of  a  prohibition  of  slavery  North  of 
36°  30',  under  a  compromise  which  they  repudiated,  and  refused  to  carry  into 
effect.  I  call  on  them  to  correct  the  erroneous  statement  in  respect  to  the 
admissiqn  of  Missouri,  and  to  make  a  restitution  of  the  consideration  by  voting 
for  this  bill.  I  repeat  that  this  is  not  an  immaterial  statement.  It  is  the 
point  upon  which  the  abolitionists  rest  their  whole  argument.  They  could 
not  get  up  a  show  of  pretext  against  the  great  principles  of  self-government 
involved  in  this  bill,  if  they  could  not  repeat  all  the  time,  as  the  senator  from 
New  York  did  in  his  speech,  that  Missouri  came  into  the  Union  with  slavery, 
in  conformity  to  the  compact  which  was  made  by  the  act  of  1820,  and  that 
the  South,  having  received  the  consideration,  is  now  trying  to  cheat  the 
North  out  of  her  part  of  the  benefits.  I  have  proven  that,  after  abolitionism 
had  gained  its  point  so  far  as  the  eighth  section  of  the  act  prohibited  slavery 
in  the  territory,  Missouri  was  denied  admission  by  Northern  votes  until  she 
entered  into  a  compact  by  which  she  was  understood  to  surrender  an  impor 
tant  right  now  exercised  by  several  states  of  the  Union. 

Mr.  President,  I  did  not  wish  to  refer  to  these  things.  I  did  not  under 
stand  them  fuUy  in  all  their  bearings  at  the  time  I  made  my  first  speech  on 
this  subject;  and,  so  far  as  I  was  familiar  with  them,  I  made  as  little  refer 
ence  to  them  as  was  consistent  with  my  duty ;  because  it  was  a  mortifying 


THE   KANSAS-NEBRASKA    ACT.  241 

reflection  to  me,  as  a  northern  man,  that  we  had  not  been  able,  in  consequence 
of  the  abolition  excitement  at  the  time,  to  avoid  the  appearance  of  bad  faith 
in  the  observance  of  legislation,  which  has  been  denominated  a  compromise. 
There  were  a  few  men  then,  as  there  are  now,  who  had  the  moral  courage  to 
perform  their  duty  to  the  country  and  the  Constitution,  regardless  of  conse 
quences  personal  to  themselves.  There  were  ten  northern  men  who  dared  to 
perform  their  duty  by  voting  to  admit  Missouri  into  the  Union  an  an  equal 
footing  with  the  original  states,  and  with  no  other  restriction  than  that  im 
posed  by  the  Constitution.  I  am  aware  that  they  were  abused  and  denounc 
ed  as  we  are  now ;  that  they  were  branded  as  dough-faces,  traitors  to  freedom, 
and  to  the  section  of  the  country  whence  they  come. 

Mr.  Geyer.  They  honored  Mr.  Lanman,  of  Connecticut,  by  burning  him 
in  effigy. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Yes,  sir ;  these  Abolitionists  honored  Mr.  Lanman  in  Connec 
ticut  just  as  they  are  honoring  me  in  Boston,  and  other  places,  by  burning  me 
in  effigy. 

Mr.  Cass.     It  will  do  you  no  harm. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Well,  sir,  I  know  it  will  not;  but  why  this  burning  in 
effigy  ?  It  is  the  legimate  consequences  of  the  address  which  was  sent  forth 
to  the  world  by  certain  senators  whom  I  denominated,  on  a  former  occasion, 
as  the  abolition  confederates.  The  senator  from  Ohio  presented  here  the  other 
day  a  resolution — ho  says  unintentionally,  and  I  take  it  so — declaring  that 
every  senator  who  advocated  this  bill  was  a  traitor  to  his  country,  to  human 
ity,  and  to  God ;  and  even  he  seemed  to  be  shocked  at  the  results  of  his  own 
advice  when  it  was  exposed.  Yet  he  did  not  seem  to  know  that  it  was,  in 
substance,  what  he  had  advised  in  his  address,  over  his  own  signature,  when 
he  called  upon  the  people  to  assemble  in  public  meetings  and  thunder  forth 
their  indignation  at  the  criminal  betrayal  of  precious  rights;  when  he  appealed 
to  ministers  of  the  gospel  to  desecrate  their  holy  calling,  and  attempted  to  in 
flame  passions,  and  fanaticism,  and  prejudice  against  senators  who  would  not 
consider  themselves  very  highly  complimented  by  being  called  his  equals  ? 
And  yet,  when  the  natural  consequences  of  his  own  action  and  advice  come 
back  upon  him,  and  he  presents  them  here,  and  is  called  to  an  account  for  the 
indecency  of  the  act,  he  professes  his  profound  regret  and  surprise  that  any 
thing  should  have  occurred  which  could  possibly  be  deemed  unkind  or  dis 
respectful  to  any  member  of  this  body  1 

Mr.  Sumner.  I  rise  merely  to  correct  the  senator  in  a  statement  in  re 
gard  to  myself,  to  the  effect  that  I  had  said  that  Missouri  came  into  the  Union 
under  the  act  of  1820,  instead  of  the  act  of  1821.  I  forbore  to  designate  any 
particular  act  under  which  Missouri  came  into  the  Union,  but  simpljr  asserted, 
as  the  result  of  the  long  controversy  with  regard  to  her  admission,  and  as  the 
end  of  the  whole  transaction,  that  she  was  received  as  a  slave  State ;  and  that 
on  being  so  received,  whether  sooner  or  later,  whether  under  the  act  of  1820 
or  1821,  the  obligations  of  the  compact  were  fixed — irrevocably  fixed — so  far 
as  the  South  is  concerned. 

Mr.  Douglas.  The  senator's  explanation  does  not  help  him  at  all.  He 
says  ho  did  not  state  under  what  act  Missouri  came  in;  but  he  did  say,  as  I 
understood  him,  that  the  act  of  1820  was  a  compact,  and  that,  according  to 
that  compact,  Missouri  was  to  come  in  with  slavery,  provided  slavery  should 
be  prohibited  in  certain  territories,  and  did  come  in  in  pursuance  of  the  com 
pact.  He  now  uses  the  word  "  compact."  To  what  compact  does  he  allude? 
Is  it  not  to  the  act  of  1820?  If  he  did  not,  what  becomes  of  his  conclusion 
that  the  eighth  section  of  that  act  is  irrepealable  ?  He  will  not  venture  to 
deny  that  his  reference  was  to  the  act  of  1820.  Did  he  refer  to  the  joint  re 
solution  of  1821,  under  which  Missouri  was  admitted?  If  so,  we  do  not  pro 
pose  to  repeal  it.  We  admit  that  it  was  a  compact,  and  that  its  obligations 

L 


242  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

are  irrevocably  fixed.  But  that  joint  resolution  does  not  prohibit  slavery  in 
the  territories.  The  Nebraska  Bill  does  not  propose  to  repeal  it,  or  impair  its 
obligation  in  any  way.  Then,  sir,  why  not  take  back  your  correction,  and 
admit  that  you  did  mean  the  act  of  1820,  when  you  spoke  of  irrevocable  ob 
ligations  and  compacts  ?  Assuming,  then,  that  the  senator  meant  what  he  is 
now  unwilling  either  to  admit  or  deny,  even  while  professing  to  correct  me, 
that  Missouri  came  in  under  the  act  of  1820,  I  aver  that  I  have  proven  that 
she  did  not  come  into  the  Union  under  that  act.  I  have  proven  that  she  was 
refused  admission  under  that  alleged  compact.  I  have,  therefore,  proven  in- 
contestably  that  the  material  statement  upon  which  his  argument  rests  is 
wholly  without  foundation,  and  unequivocally  contradicted  by  the  record. 

Sir,  I  believe  I  may  say  the  same  of  every  speech  which  has  been  made 
against  the  bill,  upon  the  ground  that  it  impaired  the  obligation  of  compacts. 
There  has  not  been  an  argument  against  the  measure,  eveiy  word  of  which 
in  regard  to  the  faith  of  compacts  is  not  contradicted  by  the  public  records. 
"What  I  complain  of  is  this :  The  people  may  think  that  a  senator,  having  the 
laws  and  journals  before  him,  to  which  he  could  refer,  would  not  make  a 
statement  in  contravention  of  those  records.  They  make  the  people  believe 
these  things,  and  cause  them  to  do  great  injustice  to  others,  under  the  delu 
sion  that  they  have  been  wronged,  and  their  feelings  outraged.  Sir,  this  ad 
dress  did  for  a  time  mislead  the  whole  country.  It  made  the  Legislature  of 
New  York  believe  that  the  act  of  1820  was  a  compact  which  it  would  be  dis 
graceful  to  violate ;  and,  acting  under  that  delusion,  they  framed  a  series  of 
resolutions,  which,  if  true  and  just,  convict  that  State  of  an  act  of  perfidy  and 
treachery  unparalleled  in  the  history  of  free  governments.  You  see,  there 
fore,  the  consequences  of  these  misstatements.  You  degrade  your  own  State, 
and  induce  the  people,  under  the  impression  that  they  have  been  injured,  to  get 
up  a  violent  crusade  against  those  whose  fidelity  and  truthfulness  will  in  the  end 
command  their  respect  and  admiration.  In  consequence  of  arousing  passions 
and  prejudices,  I  am  now  to  be  found  in  effigy,  hanging  by  the  neck,  in  all 
the  towns  where  you  have  the  influence  to  produce  such  a  result.  In  all 
these  excesses,  the  people  are  yielding  to  an  honest  impulse,  under  the  im 
pression  that  a  grievous  wrong  has  been  perpetrated.  You  have  had  your 
day  of  triumph.  You  have  succeeded  in  directing  upon  the  heads  of  others 
a  torrent  of  insult  and  calumny  from  which  even  you  shrink  with  horror,  when 
the  fact  is  exposed  that  you  have  become  the  conduits  for  conveying  it  into 
this  hall.  In  your  State,  sir,  [addressing  himself  to  Mr.  Chase,]  I  find  that  I 
am  burnt  in  effigy  in  your  abolition  towns.  All  this  is  done  because  I  have 
proposed,  as  it  is  said,  to  violate  a  compact !  Now,  what  will  those  people 
think  of  you  when  they  find  out  that  you  have  stimulated  them  to  those  acts, 
which  are  disgraceful  to  your  State,  disgraceful  to  your  party,  and  disgraceful 
to  your  cause,  under  a  misrepresentation  of  the  facts,  which  misrepresentation 
you  ought  to  have  been  aware  of,  and  should  never  have  been  made  ? 

Mr.  Chase.    Will  the  senator  from  Illinois  permit  me  to  say  a  few  words  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.     Certainly. 

Mr.  Chase.  Mr.  President,  I  certainly  regret  that  any  thing  has  occurred 
in  my  state  which  should  be  otherwise  than  in  accordance  with  the  disposition 
which  I  trust  I  have  ever  manifested  to  treat  the  senator  from  Illinois  with 
entire  courtesy.  I  do  not  wish,  however,  to  be  understood  here,  or  else 
where,  as  retracting  any  statement  which  I  have  made,  or  being  unwilling  to 
reassert  that  statement  when  it  is  directly  impeached.  I  regard  the  admission 
of  Missouri,  and  the  facts  of  the  transaction  connected  with  it,  as  constituting 
a  compact  between  the  two  sections  of  the  country,  a  part  of  which  was  ful 
filled  in  the  admission  of  Missouri,  another  part  in  the  admission  of  Arkansas, 
and  other  parts  of  which  have  been  fulfilled  hi  the  admission  of  Iowa,  and  the 
organization  of  Minnesota,  but  which  yet  remains  to  be  fulfilled  in  respect  to 


THE   KANSAS-NEBRASKA   ACT.  243 

the  Territory  of  Nebraska,  and  •which,  in  my  judgment,  will  be  violated  by  the 
repeal  of  the  Missouri  prohibition.  That  is  my  judgment.  I  have  no  quarrel 
with  senators  who  differ  with  me ;  but  upon  the  whole  facts  of  the  transac 
tion,  however,  I  have  not  changed  my  opinion  at  all,  in  consequence  of  what 
has  been  said  by  the  honorable  senator  from  Illinois,  I  say  that  the  fact  of 
the  transaction,  taken  together,  and  as  understood  by  the  country  for  more 
than  thirty  years,  constitute  a  compact  binding  in  moral  force ;  though,  as  1 
have  always  said,  being  embodied  in  a  legislative  act,  it  may  be  repealed  by 
Congress,  if  Congress  see  fit. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  President,  I  am  sorry  the  senator  from  Ohio  has  re 
peated  the  statement  that  Missouri  came  in  under  the  compact  which  he  says 
was  made  by  the  act  of  1820.  How  many  times  have  I  to  disprove  the 
statement  ?  Does  not  the  vote  to  which  I  have  referred  show  that  such  was 
not  the  case  ?  Does  not  the  fact  that  there  was  a  necessity  for  a  new  com 
promise  show  it  ?  Have  I  not  proved  it  three  times  over  ?  and  is  it  possible 
that  the  senator  from  Ohio  will  repeat  it  in  the  face  of  the  record,  with  the 
vote  staring  him  in  the  face,  and  with  the  evidence  which  I  have  produced  ? 
Does  he  suppose  that  he  can  make  his  own  people  believe  that  his  statement 
ought  to  be  credited  in  opposition  to  the  solemn  record  ?  I  am  amazed  that 
the  senator  should  repeat  the  statement  again  unsustained  by  the  fact,  by  the 
record,  and  by  the  evidence,  and  overwhelmed  by  the  whole  current  and 
weight  of  the  testimony  which  I  have  produced. 

The  senator  says,  also,  that  he  never  intended  to  do  me  injustice,  and  he  is 
sorry  that  the  people  of  his  state  have  acted  in  the  manner  to  which  I  have 
referred.  Sir,  did  he  not  say,  in  the  same  document  to  which  I  have  already 
alluded,  that  I  was  engaged,  with  others,  in  "  a  criminal  betrayal  of  precious 
rights,"  in  an  "  atrocious  plot  ?"  Did  he  not  say  that  I  and  others  were  guilty 
of  "meditated  bad  faith?"  Are  not  these  his  exact  words?  Did  he  not  say 
that  "  servile  demagogues"  might  make  the  people  believe  certain  things,  or 
attempt  to  do  so  ?  Did  he  not  say  every  thing  calculated  to  produce  and 
bring  upon  my  head  all  the  insults  to  which  I  have  been  subjected,  publicly 
and  privately — not  even  excepting  the  insulting  letters  which  I  have  received 
from  his  constituents,  rejoicing  at  my  domestic  bereavements,  and  praying 
that  other  and  similar  calamites  may  befall  me  ?  All  these  have  resulted  from 
that  address.  I  expected  such  consequences  when  I  first  saw  it.  In  it  he 
called  upon  the  preachers  of  the  gospel  to  prostitute  the  sacred  desk  in  stim 
ulating  excesses ;  and  then,  for  fear  that  the  people  would  not  know  who  it 
was  that  was  to  be  insulted  and  calumniated,  he  told  them  in  a  postscript,  that 
Mr.  Douglas  was  the  author  of  all  this  iniquity,  and  that  they  ought  not  to 
allow  their  rights  to  be  made  the  hazard  of  a  presidential  game  !  After  having 
used  such  language,  he  says  he  meant  no  disrespect — he  meant  nothing  un 
kind  I  He  was  amazed  that  I  said  in  my  opening  speech  that  there  was  any 
thing  offensive  in  this  address ;  and  he  could  not  suffer  himself  to  use  harsh 
epithets,  or  to  impugn  a  gentleman's  motives !  No,  not  he !  After  having 
deliberately  written  all  these  insults,  impugning  motive  and  charactei',  and 
calling  upon  our  holy  religion  to  sanctify  the  calumny,  he  could  not  think  of 
losing  his  dignity  by  bandying  epithets,  or  using  harsh  and  disrespectful 
terms ! 

Mr.  President,  I  expected  all  that  has  occurred,  and  more  than  has  come, 
as  the  legitimate  result  of  that  address.  The  things  to  which  I  referred  are 
the  natural  consequences  of  it.  The  only  revenge  I  seek  is  to  expose  the 
authors,  and  leave  them  to  bear,  as  best  they  may,  the  just  indignation  of  an 
honest  community,  when  the  people  discover  how  their  sympathies  and  feel 
ings  have  been  outraged,  by  making  them  the  instruments  in  performing  such 
desperate  acts. 

Sir,  even  in  Boston  I  have  been  hung  in  effigy.    I  may  say  that  I  expected 


244  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

it  to  occur  even  there,  for  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  lives  there.  He 
signed  his  name  to  that  address ;  and  for  fear  the  Boston  abolitionists  would 
not  know  that  it  was  he,  he  signed  it  "  Charles  Sumner,  senator  from  Massachu 
setts."  The  first  outrage  was  in  Ohio,  where  the  address  was  circulated 
under  the  signature  of  "  Salmon  P.  Chase,  senator  from  Ohio."  The  next  came 
f/om  Boston — the  same  Boston,  sir,  which,  under  the  direction  of  the  same 
leaders,  closed  Fanueil  Hall  to  the  immortal  Webster  in  1850,  because  of  his 
support  of  the  compromise  measures  of  that  year,  which  ah1  now  confess  have 
restored  peace  and  harmony  to  a  distracted  country.  Yes,  sir,  even  Boston, 
so  glorious  in  her  early  history — Boston,  around  whose  name  so  many  histor 
ical  associations  cling,  to  gratify  the  heart  and  exalt  the  pride  of  every  Ameri 
can — could  be  led  astray  by  abolition  misrepresentations  so  far  as  to  deny  a 
hearing  to  her  own  great  man,  who  had  shed  so  much  glory  upon  Massachu 
setts  and  her  metropolis!  I  know  that  Boston  now  feels  humiliated  and 
degraded  by  the  act.  And  sir,  (addressing  himself  to  Mr.  Sumner),  you  will 
remember  that  when  you  came  into  the  Senate,  and  sought  an  opportunity  to 
put  forth  your  abolition  incendiarism,  you  appealed  to  our  sense  of  justice  by 
the  sentiment,  "  Strike,  but  hear  me  first."  But  when  Mr.  Webster  went 
back  in  1850  to  speak  to  his  constituents  in  his  own  self-defense,  to  tell  the 
truth,  and  to  expose  his  slanderers,  you  would  not  hear  him,  but  you  struck 
first! 

Again,  sir,  even  Boston,  with  her  Fanueil  Hall  consecrated  to  liberty, 
was  so  far  led  astray  by  abolitionism  that  when  one  of  her  gallant  sons,  gal 
lant  by  his  own  glorious  deeds,  inheriting  a  heroic  revolutionary  name,  had 
given  his  life  to  his  country  upon  the  bloody  field  of  Buena  Vista,  and  when 
his  remains  were  brought  home,  even  that  Boston,  under  abolition  guidance 
and  abolition  preaching,  denied  him  a  decent  burial,  because  he  lost  his  life  in 
vindicating  his  country's  honor  upon  the  southern  frontier !  Even  the  name 
of  Lincoln  and  the  deeds  of  Lincoln  could  not  secure  for  him  a  decent  inter 
ment,  because  abolitionism  follows  a  patriot  beyond  the  grave.  (Applause  in 
the  galleries.) 

The  Presiding  Officer  (Mr.  Mason  in  the  chair.)  Order  must  be  pre 
served. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  President,  with  these  facts  before  me,  how  could  I 
hope  to  escape  the  fate  which  had  followed  these  great  and  good  men  ? 
While  I  had  no  right  to  hope  that  I  might  be  honored  as  they  had  been 
under  abolition  auspices,  have  I  not  a  right  to  be  proud  of  the  distinction  and 
the  association  ?  Mr.  President,  I  regret  these  digressions.  I  have  not  been 
able  to  follow  the  line  of  argument  which  I  had  marked  out  for  myself,  be 
cause  of  the  many  interruptions.  I  do  not  complain  of  them.  It  is  fair  that 
gentlemen  should  make  them,  inasmuch  as  they  have  not  the  opportunity  of 
replying ;  hence  I  have  yielded  the  floor,  and  propose  to  do  so  cheerfully 
whenever  any  senator  intimates  that  justice  to  him  or  his  position  requires 
him  to  say  anything  in  reply. 

Keturning  to  the  point  from  which  I  was  diverted. 

I  think  I  have  shown  that  if  the  act  of  1826,  called  the  Missouri  compro 
mise,  was  a  compact,  it  was  violated  and  repudiated  by  a  solemn  vote  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  in  1821,  within  eleven  months  after  it  was  adopted. 
It  was  repudiated  by  the  North  by  a  majority  vote,  and  that  repudiation  was 
so  complete  and  successful  as  to  compel  Missouri  to  make  a  new  compro 
mise,  and  she  was  brought  into  the  Union  under  the  new  compromise  of 
1821,  and  not  under  the  act  of  1820.  This  reminds  me  of  another  point 
made  in  nearly  all  the  speeches  against  this  bill,  and,  if  I  recollect  right,  was 
alluded  to  in  the  abolition  manifesto ;  to  which,  I  regret  to  say,  I  had  occa 
sion  to  refer  so  often.  I  refer  to  the  significant  hint  that  Mr.  Clay  was  dead 
before  any  one  dared  to  bring  forward  a  proposition  to  undo  the  greatest 


THE   KANSAS-NEBRASKA   ACT.  245 

work  of  his  hands.  The  senator  from  New  York  (Mr.  Seward)  has  seized 
upon  this  insinuation,  and  elaborated  it,  perhaps,  more  fully  than  his  com 
peers  ;  and  now  the  abolition  press  suddenly,  and,  as  if  by  miraculous  con 
version,  teems  with  eulogies  upon  Mr.  Clay  and  his  Missouri  compromise  of 
1820. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  does  not  each  of  these  senators  know  that  Mr.  Clay 
was  not  the  author  of  the  act  of  1820  ?  Do  they  not  know  that  he  disclaimed 
it  in  1850  in  this  body  ?  Do  they  not  know  that  the  Missouri  restriction  did 
not  originate  in  the  house,  of  which  he  was  a  member  ?  Do  they  not  know 
that  Mr.  Clay  never  came  into  the  Missouri  controversy  as  a  compromiser  un 
til  after  the  compromise  of  1820  was  repudiated,  and  it  became  necessary  to 
make  another?  I  dislike  to  be  compelled  to  repeat  what  I  have  conclusively 
proven,  that  the  compromise  which  Mr.  Clay  effected  was  the  act  of  1821, 
under  which  Missouri  came  into  the  Union,  and  not  the  act  of  1820.  Mr. 
Clay  made  that  compromise  after  you  had  repudiated  the  first  one.  How, 
then,  dare  you  call  upon  the  spirit  of  that  great  and  gallant  statesman  to 
sanction  your  charge  of  bad  faith  against  the  South  on  this  question  ? 

Mr.  Seward.     Will  the  senator  allow  me  a  moment  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.     Certainly. 

Mr.  Seward.  In  the  year  1851  or  1852,  I  think  1851,  a  medal  was 
struck  in  honor  of  Henry  Clay,  of  gold,  which  cost  a  large  sum  of  money, 
which  contained  eleven  acts  of  the  life  of  Henry  Clay.  It  was  presented  to 
him  by  a  committee  of  citizens  of  New  York,  by  whom  it  had  been  made. 
One  of  the  eleven  acts  of  his  life  which  was  celebrated  on  that  medal,  which 
he  accepted,  was  the  Missouri  compromise  of  1820.  This  is  my  answer. 

Mr.  Douglas.     Are  the  words  'of  1820'  upon  it? 

Mr.  Seward.     It  commemorates  the  Missouri  compromise. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Exactly.  I  have  seen  that  medal ;  and  my  recollection  is 
that  it  does  not  contain  the  words  '  of  1820.'  One  of  the  great  acts  of  Mr. 
Clay  was  the  Missouri  compromise,  but  what  Missouri  compromise?  Of 
course  the  one  which  Henry  Clay  made,  the  one  which  he  negotiated,  the  one 
which  brought  Missouri  into  the  Union,  and  which  settled  the  controversy. 
That  was  the  act  of  1821,  and  not  the  act  of  1820.  It  tends  to  confirm  the 
statement  which  I  have  made.  History  is  misread  and  misquoted,  and  these 
statements  have  been  circulated  and  disseminated  broadcast  through  the 
country,  concealing  the  truth.  Does  not  the  senator  know  that  Henry  Clay, 
when  occupying  that  seat  in  1850,  (pointing  to  Mr.  Clay's  chair,)  in  his 
speech  of  the  6th  of  February  of  that  year,  said  that  nothing  had  struck  him 
with  so  much  surprise  as  the  fact  that  historical  circumstances  soon  passed 
out  of  recollection ;  and  he  instanced,  as  a  case  in  point,  the  error  of  attribut 
ing  to  him  the  act  of  1820.  (Mr.  Seward  nodded  assent.)  The  senator  from 
New  York  says  that  he  does  remember  that  Mr.  Clay  did  say  so.  If  so,  how 
is.it,  then,  that  he  presumes  now  to  rise  and  quote  that  medal  as  evidence 
that  Henry  Clay  was  the  author  of  the  act  of  1820  ? 

Mr.  Seward.  I  answer  the  senator  in  this  way :  that  Henry  Clay,  while 
he  said  he  did  not  disavow  or  disapprove  of  that  compromise,  transferred  the 
merit  of  it  to  others  who  were  more  active  in  procuring  it  than  he,  while  he 
had  enjoyed  the  praise  and  the  glory  which  were  due  from  it. 

Mr.  Douglas.  To  that  I  have  only  to  say  that  it  can  not  be  the  reason ;  for 
Henry  Clay,  in  that  same  speech,  did  take  to  himself  the  merit  of  the  Com 
promise  of  1821,  and  hence  it  could  not  have  been  modesty  which  made  him 
disavow  the  other.  He  said  that  he  did  not  know  whether  he  had  voted  for 
the  act  of  1820  or  not;  but  he  supposed  that  he  had  done  so.  He  further 
more  said  that  it  did  not  originate  in  the  House  of  which  he  was  a  member, 
and  that  ho  never  did  approve  of  its  principles ;  but  that  he  may  have  voted, 
and  probably  did  vote  for  it,  under  the  pressure  of  the  circumstances. 


246  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  as  I  have  been  doing  justice  to  Mr.  Clay  on  this  ques 
tion,  perhaps  I  may  as  well  do  justice  to  another  great  man,  who  was  asso 
ciated  with  him  in  carrying  through  the  great  measures  of  1850,  which 
mortified  the  senator  from  New  York  so  much,  because  they  defeated  his 
purpose  of  carrying  on  the  agitation.  I  allude  to  Mr.  Webster.  The  au 
thority  of  his  great  name  has  been  quoted  for  the  purpose  of  proving  that 
he  regarded  the  Missouri  act  as  a  compact — an  irrepealable  compact.  Evi 
dently  the  distinguished  senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Everett]  supposed 
he  was  doing  Mr.  Webster  entire  justice  when  he  quoted  the  passage  which 
he  read  from  Mr.  Webster's  speech  of  the  7th  of  March,  1850,  when  he  said 
that  he  stood  upon  the  position  that  every  part  of  the  American  continent 
was  fixed  for  freedom  or  for  slavery  by  irrepealable  law. 

The  senator  says  that  by  the  expression  "irrepealable  law,"  Mr.  Webster 
meant  to  include  the  Compromise  of  1820.  Now,  I  will  show  that  that  was 
not  Mr.  Webster's  meaning — that  he  was  never  guilty  of  the  mistake  of 
saying  that  the  Missouri  act  of  1820  was  an  irrepealable  law.  Mr.  Webster 
said  in  that  speech,  that  every  foot  of  territory  in  the  United  States  was 
fixed  as  to  its  character  for  freedom  or  slavery  by  an  irrepealable  law.  He 
then  inquired  if  it  was  not  so  in  regard  to  Texas.  He  went  on  to  prove 
that  it  was ;  because,  he  said,  there  was  a  compact  in  express  terms  between 
Texas  and  the  United  States.  He  said  the  parties  were  capable  of  con 
tracting,  and  that  there  was  a  valuable  consideration ;  and  hence,  he  con 
tended,  that  in  that  case  there  was  a  contract  binding  in  honor,  and  morals, 
and  law ;  and  that  it  was  irrepealable  without  a  breach  of  faith. 

He  went  on  to  say  : 

"  Now,  as  to  California  and  New  Mexico,  I  hold  slavery  to  be  excluded 
from  those  territories  by  a  law  even  superior  to  that  which  admits  and  sanc 
tions  it  in  Texas — I  mean  the  law  of  nature,  of  physical  geography,  the  law 
of  the  formation  of  the  earth." 

That  was  the  irrepealable  law  which  he  said  prohibited  slavery  in  the 
territories  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico.  He  next  went  on  to  speak  of  the  pro 
hibition  of  slavery  in  Oregon,  and  he  said  it  was  an  "  entirely  useless,  and 
in  that  connection,  senseless  proviso." 

He  went  further,  and  said : 

"That  the  whole  territory  of  the  states  in  the  United  States,  or  in  the 
newly-acquired  territory  of  the  United  States,  has  a  fixed  and  settled  char 
acter,  now  fixed  and  settled  by  law,  which  can  not  be  repealed  in  the  case 
of  Texas  without  a  violation  of  public  faith,  and  can  not  be  repealed  by  any 
human  power  in  regard  to  California  or  New  Mexico ;  that,  under  one  or 
other  of  these  laws,  every  foot  of  territory  in  the  states,  or  in  the  territories, 
has  now  received  a  fixed  and  decided  character." 

What  irrepealable  laws  ?  "  One  or  the  other"  of  those  which  he  had 
stated.  One  was  the  Texas  compact,  the  other  the  law  of  nature  and  phys 
ical  geography  ;  and  he  contends  that  one  or  the  other  fixed  the  character 
of  the  whole  American  continent  for  freedom  or  for  slavery.  He  never  al 
luded  to  the  Missouri  Compromise,  unless  it  was  by  the  allusion  to  the 
Wilmot  proviso  in  the  Oregon  bill,  and  there  he  said  it  was  a  useless,  and,  in 
that  connection,  senseless  thing.  Why  was  it  a  useless  and  a  senseless 
thing  ?  Because  it  was  reenacting  the  law  of  God ;  because  slavery  had 
already  been  prohibited  by  physical  geography.  Sir,  that  was  the  meaning 
of  Mr.  Webster's  speech.  My  distinguished  friend  from  Massachusetts 
[Mr.  Everett],  when  he  reads  the  speech  again,  will  be  utterly  amazed  to 
see  howjie  fell  into  such  an  egregious  error  as  to  suppose  that  Mr.  Webster 
had  so  far  fallen  from  his  high  position  as  to  say  that  the  Missouri  act  of 
1820  was  an  irrepealable  law. 

Mr.  Everett.  Will  the  gentleman  give  way  for  a  moment  ? 


THE   KANSAS-NEBRASKA    ACT.  247 

Mr.  Douglas.  With  great  pleasure. 

Mr.  Everett.  "What  I  said  on  that  subject  was,  that  Mr.  Webster,  in  my 
opinion,  considered  the  Missouri  Compromise  as  of  the  nature  of  a  compact. 
It  is  true,  as  the  senator  from  Illinois  has  just  stated,  that  Mr.  Webster 
made  no  allusion,  in  express  terms,  to  the  subject  of  the  Missouri  restriction. 
But  I  thought  then,  and  I  think  now,  that  he  referred  in  general  terms  to 
that  as  a  final  settlement  of  the  question,  in  the  region  to  which  it  applied. 
It  was  not  drawn  in  question  then  on  either  side  of  the  House.  Nobody 
suggested  that  it  was  at  stake.  Nobody  intimated  that  there  was  a  question 
before  the  Senate  whether  that  restriction  should  be  repealed  or  should  re 
main  in  force.  It  was  not  distinctly,  and  in  terms,  alluded  to,  as  the  gentle 
man  correctly  says,  by  Mr.  Webster  or  anybody  else.  What  he  said  in 
reference  to  Texas,  applied  to  Texas  alone.  What  he  said  in  reference  to 
Utah  and  New  Mexico,  applied  to  them  alone ;  and  what  he  said  with  regard 
to  Oregon,  to  that  territory  alone.  But  he  stated  in  general  terms,  and  four 
or  five  times,  in  the  speech  of  the  7th  of  March,  1850,  that  there  was  not  a 
foot  of  land  in  the  United  States  or  its  territories  the  character  of  which,  for 
freedom  or  slavery,  was  not  fixed  by  some  irrepealable  law ;  arid  I  did  think 
then,  and  I  think  now,  that  by  the  "irrepealable  law,"  as  far  as  concerned 
the  territory  North  of  36°  30',  and  included  in  the  Louisiana  purchase,  Mr. 
Webster  had  reference  to  the  Missouri  restriction,  as  regarded  as  of  the 
nature  of  a  compact.  That  restriction  was  copied  from  one  of  the  pro 
visions  of  the  ordinance  of  1787,  which  are  declared  in  that  instrument 
itself  to  be  articles  of  compact.  The  Missouri  restriction  is  the  article  of  the 
ordinance  of  1787  applied  to  the  Louisiana  purchase.  That  this  is  the  cor 
rect  interpretation  of  Mr.  Webster's  language,  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that 
he  said,  more  than  once,  and  over  again,  that  all  the  North  lost  by  the  ar 
rangement  of  1850,  was  the  non-imposition  of  the  Wilmot  proviso  upon 
Utah  and  New  Mexico.  If,  in  addition  to  that,  the  North  had  lost  tho  Mis 
souri  restriction  over  the  whole  of  the  Louisiana  purchase,  could  ho  have 
used  language  of  that  kind,  and  would  he  not  have  attempted,  in  some  way 
or  other,  to  reconcile  such  a  momentous  fact  with  his  repeated  statements 
that  the  measures  of  1850  applied  only  to  the  territories  newly  acquired 
from  Mexico  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  President,  I  will  explain  that  matter  very  quickly.  Mr. 
Webster's  speech  was  made  on  the  7th  of  March,  1850,  and  the  territorial 
bills  and  the  Texas  Boundary  Bill  were  first  reported  to  the  Senate  by  my 
self  on  the  25th  of  the  same  month.  Mr.  Webster's  speech  was  made  upon 
Mr.  Clay's  resolution,  when  there  was  no  bill  pending.  Then  the  Omnibus 
Bill  was  formed  about  the  1st  of  May  subsequently ;  and  hence  this  explains 
the  reason  why  Mr.  Webster  did  not  refer  to  the  principle  involved  in  these 
acts,  and  to  the  necessary  effect  of  carrying  out  the  principle. 

Mr.  Everett.  The  expression  of  Mr.  Webster,  which  I  quoted  in  my  re 
marks  on  the  8th  of  February,  was  from  a  speech  on  Mr.  Soule's  amendment, 
offered,  I  think,  in  June.  In  addition  to  this,  I  have  before  me  an  extract 
from  a  still  later  speech  of  Mr.  Webster,  made  quite  late  in  the  session,  on 
the  17th  of  July,  1850,  in  which  he  reiterated  that  statement.  In  it  he  said  : 

"And  now,  sir,  what  do  Massachusetts  and  the  North,  the  anti-slavery 
states,  lose  by  this  adjustment  ?  What  is  it  they  lose  ?  I  put  that  question 
to  every  gentleman  here,  and  to  every  gentleman  in  the  country.  They  lose 
the  application  of  what  is  called  the  '  Wilmot  Proviso'  to  these  territories, 
and  that  is  all.  There  is  nothing  else,  I  suppose,  that  the  whole  North  are 
not  ready  to  do.  They  wish  to  get  California  into  the  Union  ;  they  wish  to 
quiet  New  Mexico ;  they  desire  to  terminate  the  dispute  about  the  Texan 
boundary  in  any  reasonable  manner,  cost  what  it  reasonably  may.  They 
make  no  sacrifice  in  all  that.  What  they  do  sacrifice  is  exactly  this :  The 


248  LIFE  OF  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

application  of  the  '  Wilmot  Proviso'  to  the  territory  of  New  Mexico  and  the 
territory  of  Utah,  and  that  is  all." 

Could  Mr.  "Webster  have  used  language  like  that  if  he  had  understood  that, 
at  the  same  time,  the  non-slaveholding  states  were  losing  the  Missouri  re 
striction,  as  applied  to  the  whole  vast  territory  included  in  the  bills  now  be 
fore  the  Senate  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.  Of  course  that  was  all,  and  if  ho  regarded  the  Missouri 
prohibition  in  the  same  light  as  he  did  the  Oregon  prohibition,  it  was  a  use 
less,  and,  in  that  connection,  a  senseless  proviso ;  and  hence  the  North  lost 
nothing  by  not  having  that  same  senseless,  useless  proviso  applied  to  Utah 
and  New  Mexico.  Now,  to  show  the  senator  that  he  must  be  mistaken  as 
to  Mr.  "Webster's  authority,  let  me  call  his  attention  back  to  this  passage  in 
his  7th  of  March  speech : 

"  Under  one  or  other  of  these  laws,  every  foot  of  territory  in  the  states  or 
territories  has  now  received  a  fixed  and  decided  character." 

"What  laws  did  he  refer  to  when  he  spoke  of  "  one  or  other  of  these  laws  ?" 
He  had  named  but  two,  the  Texas  compact,  and  the  law  of  nature,  of  cli 
mate,  and  physical  geography,  which  excluded  slavery.  He  had  mentioned 
none  other ;  and  yet  he  says  "  one  or  other"  prohibited  slavery  in  all  the 
states  or  territories — thus  including  Nebraska,  as  well  as  Utah  and  New 
Mexico. 

Mr.  Everett.     That  was  not  drawn  in  question  at  all. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Then,  if  it  was  not  drawn  in  question,  the  speech  should 
not  have  been  quoted  in  support  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  It  is  just 
what  I  complain  of,  that,  if  it  was  not  thus  drawn  in  question,  that  use  ought 
not  to  have  been  made  of  it.  Now,  Mr.  President,  it  is  well  known  that  Mr. 
Webster  supported  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  and  the  principle  in 
volved  in  them,  of  leaving  the  people  to  do  as  they  pleased  upon  this  sub 
ject.  I  think,  therefore,  that  I  have  shovm  that  these  gentlemen  are  not 
authorized  to  quote  the  name  either  of  Mr.  TVebster  or  Mr.  Clay  in  support 
of  the  position  which  they  take,  that  this  bill  violates  the  faith  of  compacts. 
Sir,  it  was  because  Mr.  "Webster  went  for  giving  the  people  in  the  territories 
the  right  to  do  as  they  pleased  upon  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  because  he 
was  in  favor  of  carrying  out  the  Constitution  in  regard  to  fugitive  slaves,  that 
he  was  not  allowed  to  speak  in  Faneuil  Hall. 

Mr.  Everett.     That  was  not  my  fault. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  know  it  was  not ;  but  I  say  it  was  because  he  took  that 
position ;  it  was  because  he  did  not  go  for  a  prohibitory  policy ;  it  was  be 
cause  he  advocated  the  same  principles  which  I  now  advocate,  because  he 
went  for  the  same  provisions  in  the  Utah  Bill  which  I  now  sustain  in  this 
bill,  that  Boston  abolitionists  turned  their  back  upon  him,  just  as  they  burnt 
me  in  effigy.  Sir,  if  identity  of  principle,  if  identity  of  support  as  friends,  if 
identity  of  enemies  fix  Mr.  "Webster's  position,  his  authority  is  certainly  with 
us,  and  not  with  the  abolitionists.  I  have  a  right,  therefore,  to  have  the 
sympathies  of  his  Boston  friends  with  me,  as  I  sympathized  with  him  when 
the  same  principle  was  involved.  • 

Mr.  President,  I  am  sorry  that  I  have  taken  up  so  much  time ;  but  I  must 
notice  one  or  two  points  more.  So  much  has  been  said  about  the  Missouri 
Compromise  Act,  and  about  a  faithful  compliance  with  it  by  the  North,  that 
I  must  follow  that  matter  a  little  further.  The  senator  from  Ohio  (Mr. 
"Wade)  has  referred,  to-night,  to  the  fact  that  I  went  for  carrying  out  the 
Missouri  Compromise  in  the  Texas  resolutions  of  1845,  and  in  1848,  on  sev 
eral  occasions ;  and  he  actually  proved  that  I  never  abandoned  it  until  1850. 
He  need  not  have  taken  the  pains  to  prove  that  fact ;  for  he  got  all  his  in 
formation  on  the  subject  from  my  opening  speech  upon  this  bill.  I  told  you 
then  that  I  was  willing,  as  a  Northern  man,  in  1845,  when  the  Texas  ques- 


THE   KANSAS-NEBRASKA    ACT.  249 

tion  arose,  to  carry  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  through  that  state,  and  in 
1848  I  offered  it  as  an  amendment  to  the  Oregon  Bill.  Although  I  did  not 
like  the  principle  involved  in  that  act,  yet  I  was  willing,  for  the  sake  of  har 
mony,  to  extend  it  to  the  Pacific,  and  abide  by  it  in  good  faith,  in  order  to 
avoid  the  slavery  agitation.  The  Missouri  Compromise  was  defeated  then  by 
the  same  class  of  politicians  who  are  now  combined  in  opposition  to  the  Ne 
braska  Bill.  It  was  because  we  were  unable  to  carry  out  that  Compromise, 
that  a  necessity  existed  for  making  a  new  one  in  1850.  And  then  we  es 
tablished  this  great  principle  of  self-government  which  lies  at  the  foundation 
of  all  our  institutions.  What  does  his  charge  amount  to  ?  He  charges  it,  aa 
a  matter  of  offense,  that  I  struggled  in  1845  and  in  1848  to  observe  good 
faith ;  and  he  and  his  associates  defeated  my  purpose,  and  deprived  me  of 
the  ability  to  carry  out  what  he  now  says  is  the  plighted  faith  of  the  nation. 

Mr.  Wade.  I  did  not  charge  the  senator  with  any  thing  except  with 
making  a  very  excellent  argument  on  my  side  of  the  question,  and  I  wished 
he  would  make  it  again  to-night.  That  was  all. 

Mr.  Douglas.  "What  was  the  argument  which  I  made  ?  A  Southern  senator 
had  complained  that  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  a  matter  of  injustice  to  the 
South.  I  told  him  he  ought  not  to  complain  of  that  when  his  Southern 
friends  were  here  proposing  to  accept  it;  and  if  we  could  carry  it  out,  he 
had  no  right  to  make  such  a  complaint.  I  was  anxious  to  carry  it  out.  It 
would  not  have  done  for  a  northern  man  who  was  opposed  to  the  measure, 
and  unwilling  to  abide  it,  to  take  that  position.  It  would  not  have  become 
the  senator  from  Ohio,  who  then  denounced  the  very  measure  which  he  now 
calls  a  sacred  compact,  to  take  that  position.  But,  as  one  who  always  been 
in  favor  of  carrying  it  out,  it  was  legitimate  and  proper  that  I  should  make 
that  argument  in  reply. 

Sir,  as  I  have  said,  the  South  were  willing  to  agree  to  the  Missouri  Com 
promise  in  1848.  "When  it  was  proposed  by  me  to  the  Oregon  Bill,  as  an 
amendment,  to  extend  that  line  to  the  Pacific,  the  South  agreed  to  it.  The 
Senate  adopted  that  proposition,  and  the  house  voted  it  down.  In  1850, 
after  the  Omnibus  Bill  had  broken  down,  and  we  proceeded  to  pass  the 
Compromise  measures  separately,  I  proposed,  when  the  Utah  Bill  was  under 
discussion,  to  make  a  slight  variation  of  the  boundary  of  that  territory,  so  as 
to  include  the  Mormon  settlements,  and  not  with  reference  to  any  other 
question ;  and  it  was  suggested  that  we  should  take  the  line  of  36°  30'. 
That  would  have  accomplished  the  local  objects  of  the  amendment  very 
well.  But  when  I  proposed  it,  what  did  these  Freesoilers  say  ?  What  did 
the  senator  from  New  Hampshire  (Mr.  Hale),  who  was  then  their  leader  in 
this  body,  say  ?  Here  are  his  words : 

"  Mr.  Hale.  I  wish  to  say  a  word  as  a  reason  why  I  shall  vote  against 
the  amendment.  I  shall  vote  against  36°  30°  because  I  think  there  is  an  im 
plication  in  it.  [Laughter.]  I  will  vote  for  37°  or  36°  either,  just  as  it  is 
convenient ;  but  it  is  idle  to  shut  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  here  is  an  attempt 
in  this  bill — I  will  not  say  it  is  the  intention  of  the  mover — to  pledge  this 
Senate  and  Congress  to  the  imaginary  line  of«  36°  30',  because  there  are 
some  historical  recollections  connected  with  it  in  regard  to  this  controversy  about 
slavery,  I  will  content  myself  with  saying  that  /  never  will,  by  vote  or  speech, 
admit  or  submit  to  any  thing  that  may  bind  the  action  of  our  legislation  here  to 
make  the  parallel  o/36°  30'  the  boundary  line  between  slave  and  free  territory. 
^.nd  when  I  say  that,  I  explain  the  reason  why  I  go  against  the  amend 
ment." 

These  remarks  of  Mr.  Hale  were  not  made  on  a  proposition  to  extend  the 
Missouri  Compromise  line  to  the  Pacific,  but  on  a  proposition  to  fix  36°  30' 
as  the  Southern  boundary  line  of  Utah,  for  local  reasons.  He  was  against  it 
because  there  might  be,  as  he  said,  an  implication  growing  out  of  historical 

L2 


250  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS. 

recollections  in  favor  of  the  imaginary  line  between  slavery  and  freedom. 
Does  that  look  as  if  his  object  was  to  get  an  implication  in  favor  of  preserv 
ing  sacred  this  line,  in  regard  to  which  gentlemen  now  say  there  was  a  sol 
emn  compact  ?  That  proposition  may  illustrate  what  I  wish  to  say  in  this 
connexion  upon  a  point  which  has  been  made  by  the  opponents  of  this  bill 
as  to  the  effect  of  an  amendment  inserted  on  the  motion  of  the  senator  from 
Virginia  (Mr.  Mason)  into  the  Texas  boundary  bill.  The  opponents  of  this 
measure  rely  upon  that  amendment  to  show  that  the  Texas  compact  was 
preserved  by  the  acts  of  1850.  I  have  already  shown,  in  my  former  speech, 
that  the  object  of  the  amendment  was  to  guaranty  to  the  state  of  Texas, 
with  her  circumscribed  boundaries,  the  same  number  of  states  which  she 
would  have  had  under  her  larger  boundaries,  and  with  the  same  right  to 
come  in  with  or  without  slavery,  as  they  please. 

We  have  been  told  over  and  over  again  that  there  was  no  such  thing  in 
timated  in  debate  as  that  the  country  cut  off  from  Texas  was  to  be  relieved 
from  the  stipulation  of  that  compromise.  This  has  been  asserted  boldly  and 
unconditionally,  as  if  there  could  be  no  doubt  about  it.  The  senator  from 
Georgia  (Mr.  Toombs)  in  his  speech,  showed  that,  in  his  address  to  his  con 
stituents  of  that  state,  he  had  proclaimed  to  the  world  that  the  object  was  to 
establish  a  principle  which  would  allow  the  people  to  decide  the  question  of 
slavery  for  themselves,  North  as  well  as  South  of  36°  30'.  The  line  of  36° 
30'  was  voted  down  as  the  boundary  of  Utah,  so  that  there  should  not  be 
even  an  implication  in  favor  of  an  imaginary  line  to  divide  freedom  and  slav 
ery.  Subsequently,  when  the  Texas  Boundary  Bill  was  under  consideration, 
on  the  next  day  after  the  amendment  of  the  senator  from  Virginia  had  been 
adopted,  the  record  says : 

"  Mr.  Sebastian  moved  to  add  to  the  second  article  the  following : 

"  '  On  the  condition  that  the  territory  hereby  ceded  may  be,  at  the  proper 
time,  formed  into  a  state,  and  admitted  into  the  Union,  with  a  Constitution 
with  or  without  the  prohibition  of  slavery  therein,  as  the  people  of  the  said 
territory  may  at  the  time  determine.'  " 

Then  the  senator  from  Arkansas  did  propose  that  the  territory  cut  off 
should  be  relieved  from  that  restriction  in  express  terms,  and  allowed  to 
come  in  according  to  the  principles  of  this  bill.  What  was  done  ?  The  de 
bate  continued : 

"  Mr.  Foote.  Will  my  friend  allow  me  to  appeal  to  him  to  move  this 
amendment  when  the  territorial  bill  for  New  Mexico  shall  be  up  for  consid 
eration  ?  It  will  certainly  be  a  part  of  that  bill,  and  I  shall  then  vote  for  it 
with  pleasure.  Now  it  will  only  embarrass  our  action." 

Let  it  be  remarked  that  no  one  denied  the  propriety  of  the  provision.  All 
seemed  to  acquiesce  in  the  principle  ;  but  it  was  thought  better  to  insert  it 
in  the  territorial  bills,  as  we  are  now  doing,  instead  of  adding  it  to  the  Texas 
Boundary  Bill.  The  debate  proceeded : 

"  Mr.  Sebastian.  My  only  object  in  offering  the  amendment  is  to  secure 
the  assertion  of  this  principle  beyond  a  doubt.  The  principle  was  acqui 
esced  in  without  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  territorial  government  established 
for  Utah,  a  part  of  this  acquired  territory,  and  it  is  proper,  in  my  opinion, 
that  it  should  be  incorporated  in  this  bill. 

"  Messrs.  Cass,  Foote,  and  others.  Oh,  withdraw  it. 

11  Mr.  Sebastian.  I  think  this  is  the  proper  place  for  it.  It  is  uncertain 
whether  it  will  be  incorporated  in  the  other  bill  referred  to,  and  the  bill  itself 
may  not  pass." 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  debate  goes  upon  the  supposition  that  the  effect 
was  to  release  the  country  North  of  36°  30'  from  the  obligation  of  the  prohibi 
tion;  and  the  only  question  was  whether  the  declaration  that  it  should  be 


THE   KANSAS-NEBRASKA   ACT.  251 

received  into  the  Union  "  with  or  without  slavery"  should  be  inserted  in  the 
Texas  bill  or  the  territorial  bill. 

The  debate  was  continued,  and  I  will  read  one  or  two  other  passages : 

"Mr.  Foote.  I  wish  to  state  to  the  senator  a  fact  of  which,  I  think,  he  is  not 
observant  at  this  moment ;  and  that  is,  that  the  senator  from  Virginia  has  in 
troduced  an  amendment,  which  is  now  a  part  of  the  bill,  which  recognizes  the 
Texas  compact  of  annexation  in  every  respect. 

"Mr.  Sebastian.  I  was  aware  of  the  effect  of  the  amendment  of  the  senator 
from  Virginia.  It  is  in  regard  to  the  number  of  states  to  be  formed  out  of 
Texas,  and  is  referred  to  only  in  general  terms." 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  senator  from  Arkansas  then  explained  the 
amendment  of  the  senator  from  Virginia,  which  had  been  adopted,  in  precisely 
the  same  way  in  which  I  explained  it  in  my  opening  speech.  The  senator 
from  Arkansas  continued : 

"If  this  amendment  be  the  same  as  that  offered  by  the  senator  from  Vir 
ginia,  there  can  certainly  be  no  harm  in  reaffirming  it  in  this  bill,  to  which  I 
think  it  properly  belongs." 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  nobody  disputed  that  the  restriction  was  to  be  re 
moved  ;  and  the  only  question  was  as  to  the  bill  in  which  that  declaration 
would  be  put.  It  seems,  from  the  record,  that  I  took  part  in  the  debate,  and 
said: 

" Mr.  Douglas.  This  boundary,  as-  now  fixed,  would  leave  New  Mexico 
bounded  on  the  east  by  the  103°  of  longitude  up  to  36°  30',  and  then  east  to 
the  100°;  and  it  leaves  a  narrow  neck  of  land  between  36°  30'  and  the  old 
boundary  of  Texas,  that  would  not  naturally  and  properly  go  to  Istew  Mexico 
when  it  should  become  a  state.  This  amendment  would  compel  us  to  include 
it  in  New  Mexico,  or  to  form  it  into  another  state.  "When  the  principle  shall 
come  up  in  the  bill  for  the  organization  of  a  territorial  government  for  New 
Mexico,  no  doubt  the  same  vote  which  inserted  it  in  the  Omnibus  Bill  and  the 
Utah  bill,  will  insert  it  there. 

"  Several  Senators.  No  doubt  of  it." 

Upon  that  debate  the  amendment  of  the  senator  from  Arkansas  was  voted 
down,  because  it  was  avowed  and  distinctly  understood  that  the  amendment 
of  the  senator  from  Virginia,  taken  in  connection  with  the  remainder  of  the 
bill,  did  release  the  country  ceded  by  Texas  North  of  36°  30'  from  the  restric 
tion  ;  and  it  was  agreed  that  if  we  did  not  put  it  into  the  Texas  boundary  bill 
it  should  go  into  the  territorial  bill.  I  stated,  as  a  reason  why  it  should  not 
go  into  the  Texas  boundary  bill,  that  if  it  did  it  would  be  a  compact,  and 
would  compel  us  to  put  the  whole  ceded  country  into  one  state,  when  it 
might  be  more  convenient  and  natural  to  make  a  different  boundary.  I 
pledged  myself  then  that  it  should  bo  put  into  the  territorial  bill ;  and  when 
we  considered  the  territorial  bill  for  New  Mexico  we  put  in  the  same  clause, 
so  far  as  the  country  ceded  by  Texas  was  embraced  within  that  territory,  and 
it  passed  in  that  shape.  When  it  went  into  the  house  they  united  the  two 
bills  together,  and  thus  this  clause  passed  in  the  same  bill,  as  the  senator 
from  Arkansas  desired. 

Now,  sir,  have  I  not  shown  conclusively  that  it  was  the  understanding  in 
that  debate  that  the  effect  was  to  release  the  country  North  of  36°  30',  which 
formerly  belonged  to  Texas,  from  the  operation  of  that  restriction,  and  to  pro 
vide  that  it  should  come  into  the  Union  with  or  without  slavery,  as  its  people 
should  see  proper? 

That  being  the  case,  I  ask  the  senator  from  Ohio  (Mr.  Chase)  if  he  ought 
not  to  have  been  cautious  when  he  charged  over  and  over  again  that  there 
was  not  a  word  or  a  syllable  uttered  in  debate  to  that  effect  ?  Should  he  not 
have  been  cautious  when  he  said  that  it  was  a  mere  after-thought  on  my 
part?  Should  ho  not  have  been  cautious  when  he  said  that  even  I  never 


252  LIFE    OP   STEPHEN   A   DOUGLAS. 

dreamed  of  it  up  to  the  4th  of  January  of  this  year  ?  "Whereas  the  record 
shows  that  I  made  a  speech  to  that  effect  during  the  pendency  of  the  bills  of 
1850.  The  same  statement  was  repeated  by  nearly  every  senator  who  fol 
lowed  him  in  debate  in  opposition  to  this  bill ;  and  it  is  now  being  circulated 
over  the  country,  published  in  every  abolition  paper,  and  read  on  every  stump 
by  every  abolition  orator,  in  order  to  get  up  a  prejudice  against  me  and  the 
measure  I  have  introduced.  Those  gentlemen  should  not  have  dared  to  utter 
the  statement  without  knowing  whether  it  was  correct  or  not.  These  records 
are  troublesome  things  sometimes.  It  is  not  proper  for  a  man  to  charge 
another  with  a  mere  after-thought  because  he  did  not  know  that  he  had 
advocated  the  same  principles  before.  Because  he  did  not  know  it  he  should 
not  take  it  for  granted  that  nobody  else  did.  Let  me  tell  the  senators  that  it 
is  a  very  unsafe  rule  for  them  to  rely  upon.  They  ought  to  have  had  sufficient 
respect  for  a  brother  senator  to  have  believed,  when  he  came  forward  with  an 
important  proposition,  that  ho  had  investigated  it.  They  ought  to  have  had 
sufficient  respect  for  a  committee  of  this  body  to  have  assumed  that  they 
meant  what  they  said. 

When  I  see  such  a  system  of  misinterpretation  and  misrepresentation  of 
views,  of  laws,  of  records,  of  debates,  all  tending  to  mislead  the  public,  to  ex 
cite  prejudice,  and  to  propagate  error,  have  I  not  a  right  to  expose  it  in  very 
plain  terms,  without  being  arraigned  for  violating  the  courtesies  of  the  Senate  ? 

Mr.  President,  frequent  reference  has  been  made  in  debate  to  the  admission 
of  Arkansas  as  a  slaveholding  state,  as  furnishing  evidence  that  the  abolition 
ists  and  freesoilers,  who  have  recently  become  so  much  enamored  with  the 
Missouri  Compromise,  have  always  been  faithful  to  its  stipulations  and  im 
plications.  I  will  show  that  the  reference  is  unfortunate  for  them.  When 
Arkansas  applied  for  admission  in  1836,  objection  was  made  in  consequence 
of  the  provisions  of  her  Constitution  in  respect  to  slavery.  When  the  aboli 
tionists  and  freesoilers  of  that  day  were  arraigned  for  making  that  objection, 
upon  the  ground  that  Arkansas  was  South  of  36°  30',  they  replied  that  the 
act  of  1820  was  never  a  compromise,  much  less  a  compact,  imposing  any  ob 
ligation  upon  the  successors  of  those  who  passed  the  act  to  pay  any  more  re 
spect  to  its  provisions  than  to  any  other  enactment  of  ordinary  legislation.  I 
have  the  debates  before  me,  but  will  occupy  the  attention  of  the  Senate  only 
to  read  one  or  two  paragraphs.  Mr.  Hand,  of  New  York,  in  opposition  to  the 
admission  of  Arkansas  as  a  slaveholding  state,  said : 

"  I  am  aware  it  will  be,  as  it  has  already  been  contended,  that  by  the 
Missouri  Compromise,  as  it  has  been  preposterously  termed,  Congress  has 
parted  with  its  right  to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  slavery  into  the  territory 
south  of  36°  30'  north  latitude." 

He  acknowledged  that  by  the  Missouri  compromise,  'as  he  said  it  was 
preposterously  termed,  the  North  was  estopped  from  denying  the  right  to 
hold  slaves  South  of  that  line ;  but,  he  added : 

"  There  are,  to  my  mind,  insuperable  objections  to  the  soundness  of  that 
proposition." 

Here  they  are : 

"  In  the  first  place,  there  was  no  compromise  or  compact  whereby  Con 
gress  surrendered  any  power,  or  yielded  any  jurisdiction;  and,  in  the  second 
place,  if  it  had  done  so,  it  was  a  mere  legislative  act,  that  could  not  bind 
their  successors ;  it  would  be  subject  to  a  repeal  at  the  will  of  any  succeed 
ing  Congress." 

I  give  these  passages  as  specimens  of  the  various  speeches  made  in  oppo 
sition  to  the  admission  of  Arkansas  by  the  same  class  of  politicians  who 
now  oppose  the  Nebraska  bill,  upon  the  ground  that  it  violates  a  solemn 
compact.  So  much  for  the  speeches.  Now  for  the  vote.  The  journal  which 


THE   KANSAS-NEBRASKA   ACT.  253 

'I  hold  in  my  hand  shows  that  forty-nine  northern  votes  were  recorded 
against  the  admission  of  Arkansas. 

Yet,  sir,  in  utter  disregard — and  charity  leads  me  to  hope,  in  profound 
ignorance — of  all  these  facts,  gentlemen  are  boasting  that  the  North  always 
observed  the  contract,  never  denied  its  validity,  never  wished  to  violate  it ; 
and  they  have  even  referred  to  the  cases  of  the  admission  of  Missouri  and 
Arkansas  as  instances  of  their  good  faith. 

Now,  is  it  possible  that  gentlemen  could  suppose  these  things  could  be 
said  and  distributed  in  their  speeches  without  exposure  ?  Did  they  presume 
that,  inasmuch  as  their  lives  were  devoted  to  slavery  agitation,  whatever 
they  did  not  know  about  the  history  of  that  question  did  not  exist  ?  I  am 
willing  to  believe,  I  hope  it  may  be  the  fact,  that  they  were  profoundly  igno 
rant  of  all  these  records,  all  these  debates,  all  these  facts,  which  overthrow 
every  position  they  have  assumed.  I  wish  the  senator  from  Maine  (Mr.  Fes- 
senden),  who  delivered  his  maiden  speech  here  to-night,  and  who  made  a 
great  many  sly  stabs  at  me,  had  informed  himself  upon  the  subject  before 
lie  repeated  all  these  groundless  assertions.  I  can  excuse  him,  for  the  reason 
that  he  has  been  hero  but  a  few  days,  and,  having  enlisted  under  the  ban 
ner  of  the  abolition  confederates,  was  unwise  and  simple  enough  to  believe 
that  what  they  had  published  could  be  relied  upon  as  stubborn  facts.  He 
may  be  an  innocent  victim.  I  hope  he  can  have  the  excuse  of  not  having 
investigated  the  subject.  I  am  willing  to  excuse  him  on  the  ground  that  he 
did  not  know  what  he  was  talking  about,  and  it  is  the  only  excuse  which  I 
can  make  for  him.  I  will  say,  however,  that  I  do  not  think  he  was  required 
by  his  loyalty  to  the  abolitionists  to  repeat  every  disreputable  insinuation 
which  they  made.  "Why  did  he  throw  into  his  speech  that  foul  inuendo 
about  "a  northern  man  with  southern  principles,"  and  then  quote  the  senator 
from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Sumner)  as  his  authority  ?  Ay,  sir,  I  say  that  foul 
insinuation.  Did  not  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  who  first  dragged  it 
into  this  debate  wish  to  have  the  public  understand  that  I  was  known  as  a 
northern  man  with  southern  principles?  "Was  not  that  the  allusion?  If  it 
was,  he  availed  himself  of  a  cant  phrase  in  the  public  mind,  in  violation  of 
the  truth  of  history.  I  know  of  but  one  man  in  this  country  who  ever  made 
it  a  boast  that  he  was  "  a  northern  man  with  southern  principles,"  and  lie 
(turning  to  Mr.  Sumner)  was  your  candidate  for  the  Presidency  in  1848. 
(Applause  in  the  galleries.) 

The  Presiding  Officer  (Mr.  Mason.)     Order,  order. 

Mr.  Douglas.  If  his  sarcasm  was  intended  for  Martin  Yan  Buren,  it  in 
volves  a  family  quarrel,  with  which  I  have  no  disposition  to  interfere.  I  will 
only  add  that  I  have  been  able  to  discover  nothing  in  the  present  position  or 
recent  history  of  that  distinguished  statesman  which  would  lead  me  to  covet 
the  sobriquet  by  which  he  is  known — "a  northern  man  with  southern  prin 
ciples." 

Mr.  President,  the  senators  from  Ohio  and  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Chase  and 
Mr.  Sumner)  have  taken  the  liberty  to  impeach  my  motives  in  bringing  for 
ward  this  measure.  I  desire  to  know  by  what  right  they  arraign  me,  or  by 
what  authority  they  impute  to  me  other  and  different  motives  than  those 
which  I  have  assigned.  I  have  shown  from  the  record  that  I  advocated  and 
voted  for  the  same  principles  and  provisions  in  the  compromise  acts  of  1850 
which  are  embraced  in  this  bill.  I  have  proven  that  I  put  the  same  construc 
tion  upon  those  measures  immediately  after  their  adoption  that  is  given  in  the 
report  which  I  submitted  this  session  from  the  Committee  on  Territories.  I 
have  shown  that  the  Legislature  of  Illinois  at  its  first  session,  after  those 
measures  were  enacted,  passed  resolutions  approving  them,  and  declaring  that 
the  same  great  principles  of  self-government  should  be  incorporated  into  all 
territorial  organizations.  Yet,  sir,  in  the  face  of  these  facts,  these  senators 


254  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

have  the  hardihood  to  declare  that  this  was  all  an  "  after- thought"  on  my 
part,  conceived  for  the  first  time  during  the  present  session ;  and  that  the 
measure  is  offered  as  a  bid  for  presidential  votes !  Are  they  incapable  of  con 
ceiving  that  an  honest  man  can  do  a  right  thing  from  worthy  motives  ?  I 
must  be  permitted  to  tell  those  senators  that  their  experience  in  seeking  po- 
litk-al  preferment  does  not  furnish  a  safe  rule  by  which  to  judge  the  charac 
ter  and  principles  of  other  senators ! 

I  must  be  permitted  to  tell  the  senator  from  Ohio  that  I  did  not  obtain  my 
seat  in  this  body  either  by  a  corrupt  bargain  or  a  dishonorable  coalition !  I 
must  be  permitted  to  remind  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  that  I  did  not 
enter  into  any  combinations  or  arrangements  by  which  my  character,  my 
principles,  and  my  honor,  were  set  up  at  public  auction  or  private  sale,  in 
order  to  procure  a  seat  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States !  I  did  not  come 
into  the  Senate  by  any  such  means. 

Mr.  Wetter.     But  there  are  some  men  whom  I  know  that  did. 

Mr.  Chase,  (to  Mr.  Weller.)     Do  you  say  that  I  came  here  by  a  bargain  ? 

The  Presiding  Officer,  (Mr.  Mason.)  Order  must  be  preserved  in  the 
Senate. 

Mr.  Weller.    I  will  explain  what  I  mean. 

The  Presiding  Officer.     The  senator  from  Illinois  is  entitled  to  the  floor. 

Mr.  Dodge,  of  Iowa.  I  call  both  the  senator  from  California  and  senator  from 
Ohio  to  order. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  cannot  yield  the  floor  until  I  get  through.  I  say,  then, 
there  is  nothing  which  authorized  that  senator  to  impugn  my  motives. 

Mr.  Chase.  Will  the  senator  from  Illinois  allow  me  ?  Does  he  say  that  I 
came  into  the  Senate  by  a  corrupt  bargain  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  cannot  permit  the  senator  to  change  the  issue.  He  has 
arraigned  me  on  the  charge  of  seeking  high  political  station  by  unworthy 
means.  I  tell  him  there  is  nothing  in  my  history  which  would  create  the  sus 
picion  that  I  came  into  the  Senate  by  a  corrupt  bargain  or  a  disgraceful  coali 
tion? 

Mr.  Chase.  Whoever  says  that  I  came  here  by  a  corrupt  bargain  states 
what  is  false. 

Mr.  Weller.     Mr.  President 

Mr.  Douglas.  My  friend  from  California  will  wait  till  I  get  through,  if  he 
pleases. 

TJie  Presiding  Officer.    The  senator  from  Illinois  is  entitled  to  the  floor. 

Mr.  Douglas.  It  will  not  do  for  the  senator  from  Ohio  to  return  offensive 
expressions  after  what  I  have  said  and  proven.  Nor  can  I  permit  him  to 
change  the  issue,  and  thereby  divert  public  attention  from  the  enormity  of  his 
offence,  in  charging  me  with  unworthy  motives,  while  performing  a  high 
public  duty,  in  obedience  to  the  expressed  wish  and  known  principles  of  my 
state.  I  choose  to  maintain  my  own  position,  and  leave  the  public  to  ascer 
tain,  if  they  do  not  understand,  how  and  by  what  means  he  was  elected  to 
the  Senate. 

Mr.  Chase.  If  the  senator  will  allow  me,  I  will  say,  in  reply  to  the  remarks 
which  the  senator  has  just  made,  that  I  did  not  understand  him  as  calling  upon 
me  for  any  explanation  of  the  statement  which  he  said  was  made  in  regard 
to  a  presidential  bid.  The  exact  statement  in  the  address  was  this — it  was  a 
question  addressed  to  the  people:  "Would  they  allow  their  dearest  rights  to 
be  made  the  hazards  of  a  presidential  game  ?"  That  was  the  exact  expres 
sion.  Now,  sir,  it  is  well  known  that  all  these  great  measures  in  the  country 
are  influenced,  more  or  less,  by  reference  to  the  great  public  canvasses  which 
are  going  on  from  time  to  time.  I  certainly  did  not  intend  to  impute  to  the 
senator  from  Illinois — and  I  desire  always  to  do  justice — in  that  any  improper 
motive.  I  do  not  think  it  is  an  unworthy  ambition  to  desire  to  be  a  President 


THE  KANSAS-NEBKASKA   ACT.  255 

of  the  United  States.  I  do  not  think  that  the  bringing  forward  of  a  measure 
with  reference  to  that  object  would  be  an  improper  thing,  if  the  measure  be 
proper  in  itself.  I  differ  from  the  senator  in  my  judgment  of  the  measure.  I 
do  not  think  the  measure  is  a  right  one.  In  that  I  express  the  judgment 
which  I  honestly  entertain.  I  do  not  condemn  his  judgment ;  I  do  not  make, 
and  I  do  not  desire  to  make,  any  personal  imputations  upon  him  in  reference 
to  a  great  public  question. 

Mr.  WeUer.     Mr.  President 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  cannot  allow  my  friend  from  California  to  come  into  the 
debate  at  this  time,  for  this  is  my  peculiar  business.  I  may  let  him  in  after 
awhile.  I  wish  to  examine  the  explanation  of  the  senator  from  Ohio,  and 
see  whether  I  ought  to  accept  it  as  satisfactory.  He  has  quoted  the  language 
of  the  address.  It  is  undeniable  that  that  language  clearly  imputed  to  me  the 
design  of  bringing  forward  this  bill  with  a  view  of  securing  my  own  election  to 
the  presidency.  Then,  by  way  of  excusing  himself  for  imputing  to  me  such 
a  purpose,  the  senator  says  that  he  does  not  consider  it  "an  unworthy  ambi 
tion;"  and  hence  he  says  that,  in  making  the  charge,  he  does  not  impugn  my 
motives.  I  must  remind  him  that,  in  addition  to  that  insinuation,  he  only 
said,  in  the  same  address,  that  my  bill  was  a  "  criminal  betrayal  of  precious 
rights;"  he  only  said  it  was  "  an  atrocious  plot  against  freedom  and  human 
ity;"  he  only  said  that  it  was  "meditated  bad  faith;"  he  only  spoke  signifi 
cantly  of  "servile  demagogues;"  he  only  called  upon  the  preachers  of  the 
Gospel  and  the  people  at  their  public  meetings  to  denounce  and  resist  such  a 
monstrous  iniquity.  In  saying  all  this,  and  much  of  the  same  sort,  he  now 
assures  me,  in  the  presence  of  the  Senate,  that  he  did  not  mean  the  charge  to 
imply  an  "  unworthy  ambition  ;"  that  it  was  not  intended  as  a  "  personal  im 
putation"  upon  my  motives  or  character;  and  that  he  meant  "no  personal  dis 
respect"  to  me  as  the  author  of  the  measure.  In  reply,  I  will  content  myself 
with  the  remark,  that  there  is  a  very  wide  difference  of  opinion  between  the 
senator  from  Ohio  and  myself  in  respect  to  the  meaning  of  words,  and  es 
pecially  in  regard  to  the  line  of  conduct  which,  in  a  public  man,  does  not 
constitute  an  unworthy  ambition. 

Mr.  Welkr.  Now,  I  ask  my  friend  from  Illinois  to  give  way  to  me  for  a 
few  moments. 

Mr.  Douglas.    I  yield  the  floor. 

A  debate  then  took  place  between  Messrs  Weller  and 
Chase,  which  is  omitted  here. 

Mr.  Sumner.  "Will  the  senator  from  Illinois  .yield  the  floor  to  me  for  a 
moment  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.  As  I  presume  it  is  on  the  same  point,  I  will  hear  the  testi 
mony. 

Mr.  Sumner.  Mr.  President,  I  shrink  always  instinctively  from  any  effort 
to  repel  a  personal  assault.  I  do  not  recognize  the  jurisdiction  of  this  body 
to  try  my  election  to  the  Senate ;  but  I  do  state,  in  reply  to  the  senator  from 
Illinois,  that  if  he  means  to  suggest  that  I  came  into  the  body  by  any  waiver 
of  principles ;  by  any  abandonment  of  my  principles  of  any  kind ;  by  any 
effort  or  activity  of  my  own,  in  any  degree,  he  states  that  which  cannot  be 
sustained  by  the  facts.  I  never  sought,  in  any  way,  the  office  which  I  now 
hold ;  nor  was  I  a  party,  in  any  way,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  those  efforts 
which  placed  me  here. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  do  not  complain  of  my  friend  from  California  for  interpos 
ing  in  the  manner  he  has ;  for  I  see  that  it  was  very  appropriate  in  him  to  do 
so.  But,  sir,  the  senator,  from  Massachusetts  comes  up  with  a  very  bold  front, 
and  denies  the  right  of  any  man  to  put  him  on  defence  for  the  manner  of  his 


253  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

election.  He  says  it  is  contrary  to  his  principles  to  engage  in  personal  as 
saults.  If  he  expects  to  avail  himself  of  the  benefit  of  such  a  plea,  he  should 
act  in  accordance  with  his  professed  principles,  and  refrain  from  assaulting  the 
character  and  impugning  the  motives  of  better  men  than  himself.  Everybody 
knows  that  he  came  here  by  a  coalition  or  combination  between  political  par 
ties  holding  opposite  and  hostile  opinions.  But  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  go  in 
to  the  morality  of  the  matters  involved  in  his  election.  The  public  know  the 
history  of  that  notorious  coalition,  and  have  formed  its  judgment  upon  it.  It 
will  not  do  for  the  senator  to  say  that  he  was  not  a  party  to  it,  for  ho  thereby 
betrays  a  consciousness  of  the  immortality  of  the  transaction  without  ac 
quitting  himself  of  the  responsibilities  which  justly  attach  to  him.  As  well 
might  the  receiver  of  stolen  goods  deny  any  responsibility  for  the  larcency, 
while  luxuriating  in  the  proceeds  of  the  crime,  as  the  senator  to  avoid  the 
consequences  resulting  from  the  mode  of  his  election,  while  he  clings  to  the 
office.  I  must  be  permitted  to  remind  him  of  what  he  certainly  can  never 
forget,  that  when  he  arrived  here  to  take  his  seat  for  the  first  time,  so  firmly 
were  senators  impressed  with  the  conviction  that  he  had  been  elected  by  dis 
honorable  and  corrupt  means,  there  were  very  few  who,  for  a  long  time,  could 
deem  it  consistent  with  personal  honor  to  hold  private  intercourse  with  him. 
So  general  was  that  impression,  that  for  a  long  time  he  was  avoided  and 
shunned  as  a  person  unworthy  of  the  association  of  gentlemen.  Gradually, 
however,  these  injurious  impressions  were  worn  away  by  his  bland  manners 
and  amiable  deportment ;  and  I  regret  that  the  senator  should  now,  by  a  vio 
lation  of  all  the  rules  of  courtesy  and  propriety,  compel  me  to  refresh  his  mind 
upon  these  unwelcome  reminiscences. 

Mr.  Chase.  If  the  senator  refers  to  me,  he  is  stating  a  fact  of  which  I  have 
no  knowledge  at  aU.  I  came  here » 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  was  not  speaking  of  the  senator  from  Ohio,  but  of  his  con 
federate  in  slander,  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Sumner).  I  have  a 
word  now  to  say  to  the  other  senator  from  Ohio  (Mr.  Wade).  On  the  day 
when  I  exposed  this  abolition  address,  so  full  of  slanders  and  calumnies,  he 
rose  and  stated  that,  although  his  name  was  signed  to  it,  he  had  never  read 
it;  and  so  willing  was  he  to  endorse  an  abolition  document,  that  he  signed  it 
in  blank,  without  knowing  what  it  contained. 

Mr.  Wade.     I  have  always  found  them  true. 

Mr.  Douglas.  He  stated  that  from  what  I  had  exposed  of  its  contents  he 
did  not  hesitate  to  endorse  every  word.  In  the  same  speech  he  said,  that  in 
Ohio  a  negro  was  as  good  as  a  white  man ;  with  the  avowal  that  he  did  not 
consider  himself  any  better  than  a  free  negro.  I  have  only  to  say  that  I  should 
not  ha,ve  noticed  it  if  none  but  free  negroes  had  signed  it ! 

The  senator  from  New  York  (Mr.  Seward),  when  I  was  about  to  call  him  to 
account  for  this  slanderous  production,  promptly  denied  that  he  ever  signed 
the  document.  Now,  I  say  that  it  has  been  circulated  with  his  name  attached 
to  it ;  then  I  want  to  know  of  the  senators  who  sent  out  the  document,  who 
forged  the  name  of  the  senator  from  New  York  ? 

Mr.  Chase.  I  am  glad  that  the  senator  has  asked  that  question.  I  have 
only  to  say,  in  reference  to  that  matter,  that  I  have  not  the  slightest  knowl 
edge  in  regard  to  the  manner  in  which  various  names  were  appended  to  that 
document.  It  was  prepared  to  be  signed,  and  was  signed,  by  the  gentlemen 
here  who  are  known  as  independent  Democrats,  and  how  any  other  names 
came  to  be  added  to  it  is  more  than  I  can  tell. 

Mr.  Douglas.  It  is  not  a  satisfactory  answer,  for  those  who  confess  to  the 
preparation  and  publication  of  a  document  filled  with  insult  and  calumny, 
with  forged  names  attached  to  it  for  the  purpose  of  imparting  to  it  respecta 
bility,  to  interpose  a  technical  denial  that  they  committed  the  crime.  Some 
body  did  forge  other  people's  names  to  that  document.  The  senators  from 


THE   KANSAS-NEBRASKA    ACT.  257 

Ohio  and  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Chase  and  Mr-  Sumner)  plead  guilty  to  the  au 
thorship  and  publication ;  upon  them  rests  the  responsibility  of  showing  who 
committed  the  forgery. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  done  with  these  personal  matters.  I  regret  the  ne 
cessity  which  compelled  me  to  devote  so  much  time  to  them.  All  I  have  done 
and  said  has  been  in  the  way  of  self-defense,  as  the  Senate  can  bear  me 
witness. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  also  occupied  a  good  deal  of  time  in  exposing  the 
cant  of  these  gentlemen  about  the  sanctity  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  and 
the  dishonor  attached  to  the  violation  of  plighted  faith.  I  have  exposed  these 
matters  in  order  to  show  that  the  object  of  these  men  is  to  withdraw  from 
public  attention  the  real  principle  involved  in  the  bill.  They  well  know  that 
the  abrogation  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  is  the  incident  and  not  the  prin 
ciple  of  the  bill  They  well  understand  that  the  report  of  the  committee  and 
the  bill  propose  to  establish  the  principle  in  all  territorial  organizations,  that 
the  question  of  slavery  shall  be  referred  to  the  people  to  regulate  for  them 
selves,  and  that  such  legislation  should  be  had  as  was  necessary  to  remove 
all  legal  obstructions  to  the  free  exercise  of  this  right  by  the  people. 

The  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  Act  standing  in  the  way  of  this  great 
principle  must  be  rendered  inoperative  and  void,  whether  expressly  repealed 
or  not,  in  order  to  give  the  people  the  power  of  regulating  their  own  domestic 
institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution. 

Now,  sir,  if  these  gentlemen  have  entire  confidence  in  the  correctness  of 
their  own  position,  why  do  they  not  meet  the  issue  boldly  and  fairly,  and 
controvert  the  soundness  of  this  great  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  in  obe 
dience  to  "he  Constitution  ?  They  know  full  well  that  this  was  the  principle 
upon  which  the  colonies  separated  from  the  crown  of  Great  Britain,  the  prin 
ciple  upon  which  the  battles  of  the  Revolution  were  fought,  and  the  principle 
upon  which  our  republican  system  was  founded.  They  caa  not  be  ignorant 
of  the  fact  that  the  Revolution  grew  out  of  the  assertion  of  the  right  on  the 
part  of  the  imperial  government  to  interfere  with  the  internal  affairs  and  do 
mestic  concerns  of  the  colonies.  In  this  connection  I  will  invite  attention  to  a 
few  extracts  from  the  instructions  of  the  different  colonies  to  their  delegates 
in  the  Continental  Congress,  with  the  view  of  forming  such  a  union  as  would 
enable  them  to  make  successful  resistance  to  the  efforts  of  the  crown  to  destroy 
the  fundamental  principles  of  all  free  government  by  interfering  with  the  do 
mestic  affairs  of  the  colonies. 

I  will  begin  with  Pennsylvania,  whose  devotion,  to  the  principle  of  human 
liberty,  and  the  obligations  of  the  Constitution,  has  acquired  for  her  the  proud 
title  of  Key-stone  in  the  arch  of  republican  states.  In  her  instructions  is  con 
tained  the  following  reservation  : 

"  Reserving  to  the  people  of  this  colony  the  sole  and  exclusive  right  of  reg 
ulating  the  internal  government  and  police  of  the  same." 

And,  in  a  subsequent  instruction,  in  reference  to  suppressing  the  British 
authority  in  the  colonies,  Pennsylvania  uses  the  following  emphatic  lan- 


"  Unanimously  declare  our  willingness  to  concur  in  a  vote  of  the  Congress 
declaring  the  United  Colonies  free  and  independent  States,  provided  the  form 
ing  the  government  and  the  regulation  of  the  internal  police  of  this  colony 
be  always  reserved  to  the  people  of  the  said  colony." 

Connecticut,  in  authorizing  her  delegates  to  vote  for  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  attached  to  it  the  following  condition : 

"  Saving  that  the  administration  of  government,  and  the  power  of  forming 
governments  for,  and  the  regulation  of  the  internal  concerns  and  police  of 
each  colony,  ought  to  be  left  and  remain  to  the  respective  colonial  legisla 
tures." 


258  LIFE   OP   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

New  Hampshire  annexed  this  proviso  to  her  instructions  to  her  delegates 
to  vote  for  independence  : 

"  Provided  the  regulation  of  our  internal  police  be  under  the  direction  of 
our  own  assembly." 

New  Jersey  imposed  the  following  condition  : 

"  Always  observing  that,  whatever  plan  of  confederacy  you  enter  into,  the 
regulating  the  internal  police  of  this  province  is  to  be  reserved  to  the  colo 
nial  legislature." 

Maryland  gave  her  consent  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence  upon  the 
condition  contained  in  this  proviso : 

"  And  that  said  colony  will  hold  itself  bound  by  the  resolutions  of  a  ma 
jority  of  the  United  colonies  in  the  premises,  provided  the  sole  and  exclu 
sive  right  of  regulating  the  internal  government  and  police  of  that  colony 
be  reserved  to  the  people  thereof." 

Virginia  annexed  the  following  condition  to  her  instructions  to  vote  for 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  : 

"  Provided  that  the  power  of  forming  government  for,  and  the  regulations 
of  the  internal  concerns  of  the  colony,  be  left  to  respective  colonial  legis 
latures." 

I  will  not  weary  the  Senate  in  multiplying  evidence  upon  this  point.  It 
is  apparent  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  had  its  origin  in  the  vio 
lation  of  that  great  fundamental  principle  which  secured  to  the  people  of  the 
colonies  the  right  to  regulate  their  own  domestic  affairs  in  their  own  way ; 
and  that  the  Eevolution  resulted  in  the  triumph  of  that  principle,  and  the 
recognition  of  the  right  asserted  by  it. 

Abolitionism  proposes  to  destroy  the  right  and  extinguish  the  principle  for 
which  our  forefathers  waged  a  seven  years'  bloody  war,  and  upon  which  our 
whole  system  of  free  government  is  founded.  They  not  only  deny  the  appli 
cation  of  this  principle  to  the  territories,  but  insist  upon  fastening  the  prohi 
bition  upon  all  the  states  to  be  formed  out  of  those  territories.  Therefore,  the 
doctrine  of  the  abolitionists — the  doctrine  of  the  opponents  of  the  Nebraska 
and  Kansas  Bill,  and  of  the  advocates  of  the  Missouri  restriction — demand 
congressional  interference  with  slavery,  not  only  in  the  territories,  but  in  all 
the  new  states  to  be  formed  therefrom.  It  is  the  same  doctrine  when  ap 
plied  to  the  territories  and  new  states  of  this  Union,  which  the  British  govern 
ment  attempted  to  enforce  by  the  sword  upon  the  American  colonies.  It  is 
this  fundamental  principle  of  self-government  which  constitutes  the  distinguish 
ing  feature  of  the  Nebraska  Bill.  The  opponents  of  the  principle  are  consistent 
in  opposing  the  bill.  I  do  not  blame  them  for  their  opposition.  I  only  ask 
them  to  meet  the  issue  fairly  and  openly,  by  acknowledging  that  they  are  op 
posed  to  the  principle  which  it  is  the  object  of  the  bill  to  carry  into  operation. 
It  seems  that  there  is  no  power  on  earth,  no  intellectual  power,  no  mechanical 
power  that  can  bring  them  to  a  fair  discussion  of  the  true  issue.  If  they  hope 
to  delude  the  people,  and  escape  detection  for  any  considerable  length  of  time 
under  the  catch- word  "Missouri  Compromise,"  and  "faith  of  compacts," 
they  will  find  that  the  people  of  this  country  have  more  penetration  and  intel 
ligence  than  they  have  given  them  credit  for. 

Mr.  President,  there  is  an  important  fact  connected  with  this  slavery  reso 
lution  which  should  never  be  lost  sight  of.  It  has  always  arisen  from  one 
and  the  same  cause.  "Whenever  that  cause  has  been  removed,  the  agitation 
has  ceased;  and  whenever  the  cause  has  been  renewed,  the  agitation  has 
sprung  into  existence.  That  cause  is,  and  ever  has  been,  the  attempt  on  the 
part  of  Congress  to  interfere  with  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  territories  and 
new  states  formed  therefrom.  Is  it  not  wise,  then,  to  confine  our  action 
within  the  sphere  of  our  legitimate  duties,  and  leave  this  vexed  question  to 
take  care  of  itself  in  each  state  and  territory,  according  to  the  wishes  of  the 


THE  KANSAS-NEBEASKA   ACT.  259 

peoplo  thereof,  in  conformity  to  the  forms  and  in  subjection  to  the  provisions 
of  the  Constitution  ? 

The  opponents  of  the  bill  tell  us  that  agitation  is  no  part  of  their  policy, 
that  their  great  desire  is  peace  and  harmony ;  and  they  complain  bitterly  that 
I  should  have  disturbed  the  repose  of  the  country  by  the  introduction  of  this 
measure.  Let  me  ask  these  professed  friends  of  peace  and  avowed  enemies 
of  agitation,  how  the  issue  could  have  been  avoided  ?  They  tell  me  that  I 
should  have  let  the  question  alone — that  is,  that  I  should  have  left  Nebraska 
unorganized,  the  people  unprotected,  and  the  Indian  barrier  in  existence, 
until  the  swelling  tide  of  emigration  should  burst  through,  and  accomplish  by 
violence  what  it  is  the  part  of  wisdom  and  statesmanship  to  direct  and  regu 
late  by*  law.  How  long  could  you  have  postponed  action  with  safety?  How 
long  could  you  maintain  that  Indian  barrier,  and  restrain  the  onward  march 
of  civilization,  Christianity,  and  free  government  by  a  barbarian  wall  ?  Do 
you  suppose  that  you  could  keep  that  vast  country  a  howling  wilderness  in 
all  time  to  come,  roamed  over  by  hostile  savages,  cutting  off  all  safe  commu 
nication  between  our  Atlantic  and  Pacific  possessions  ?  I  tell  you  that  the 
time  for  action  has  come,  and  cannot  be  postponed.  It  is  a  case  in  which  the 
"let-alone"  policy  would  precipitate  a  crisis  which  must  inevitably  result  in 
violence,  anarchy,  and  strife. 

You  cannot  fix  bounds  to  the  onward  march  of  this  great  and  growing 
country.  You  cannot  fetter  the  limbs  of  the  young  giant.  He  will  burst  all 
your  chains.  He  will  expand,  and  grow,  and  increase,  and  extend  civiliza 
tion,  Christianity,  and  liberal  principles.  Then,  sir,  if  you  cannot  check  the 
growth  of  the  country  in  that  direction,  is  it  not  the  part  of  wisdom  to  look 
the  danger  in  the  face,  and  provide  for  an  event  which  you  cannot  avoid  ?  I 
tell  you,  sir,  you  must  provide  for  continuous  lines  of  settlement  from  the  Mis 
sissippi  Valley  to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  And  in  making  this  provision  you  must 
decide  upon  what  principles  the  territories  shall  be  organized ;  in  other  words, 
whether  the  people  shall  be  allowed  to  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in 
their  own  way,  according  to  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  or  whether  the  oppo 
site  doctrine  of  congressional  interference  is  to  prevail.  Postpone  it,  if  you 
will ;  but  whenever  yon  do  act,  this  question  must  be  met  and  decided. 

The  Missouri  Compromise  was  interference;  the  compromise  of  1850  was 
non-interference,  leaving  the  people  to  exercise  their  rights  under  the  Consti 
tution.  The  Committee  on  Territories  were  compelled  to  act  on  this  subject. 
I,  as  their  chairman,  was  bound  to  meet  the  question.  I  choose  to  take  the 
responsibility,  regardless  of  consequences  personal  to  myself.  I  should  have 
done  the  same  thing  last  year,  if  there  had  been  time ;  but  we  know,  con 
sidering  the  late  period  at  which  the  bill  then  reached  us  from  the  house,  that 
there  was  not  sufficient  time  to  consider  the  question  fully,  and  to  prepare  a 
report  upon  the  subject.  I  was,  therefore,  persuaded  by  friends  to  allow  the 
bill  to  be  reported  to  the  Senate,  in  order  that  such  action  might  be  taken  as 
should  be  deemed  wise  and  proper. 

The  bill  was  never  taken  up  for  action;  the  last  night  of  the  session  having 
been  exhausted  in  debate  on  the  motion  to  take  up  the  bill.  This  session 
the  measure  was  introduced  by  my  friend  from  Iowa  (Mr.  Dodge),  and  refer 
red  to  the  Territorial  Committee  during  the  first  week  of  the  session.  We 
have  abundance  of  time  to  consider  the  subject ;  it  was  a  matter  of  pressing 
necessity,  and  there  was  no  excuse  for  not  meeting  it  directly  and  fairly. 
"We  were  compelled  to  take  our  position  upon  the  doctrine  either  of  interven 
tion  or  non-intervention.  "We  chose  the  latter,  for  two  reasons :  first,  be 
cause  we  believed  that  the  principle  was  right ;  and,  second,  because  it  was 
the  principle  adopted  in  1850,  to  which  the  two  great  political  parties  of  the 
country  were  solemnly  pledged. 

There  is  another  reason  why  I  desire  to  see  this  principle  recognized  as  a 


260  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

rule  of  action  in  all  time  to  come.  It  will  have  the  effect  to  destroy  all  sec 
tional  parties  and  sectional  agitations.  If,  in  the  language  of  the  report  of 
the  committee,  you  withdraw  the  slavery  question  from  the  halls  of  Congress 
and  the  political  arena,  and  commit  it  to  the  arbitrament  of  those  who  are 
immediately  interested  in  and  alone  responsible  for  its  consequences,  there  is 
nothing  left  out  of  which  sectional  parties  can  be  organized.  It  never  was 
done,  and  never  can  be  done  on  the  bank,  tariff,  distribution,  or  any  other 
party  issue  which  has  existed,  or  may  exist,  after  this  slavery  question  is 
withdrawn  from  politics.  On  every  other  political  question  these  have  al 
ways  supporters  and  opponents  in  every  portion  of  the  Union — in  each  state, 
county,  village,  and  neighborhood — residing  together  in  harmony  and  good- 
fellowship,  and  combating  each  other's  opinions  and  correcting  each"  other's 
errors  in  a  spirit  of  kindness  and  friendship.  These  differences  of  opinion  be 
tween  neighbors  and  friends,  and  the  discussions  that  grow  out  of  them,  and 
the  sympathy  which  each  feels  with  the  advocates  of  his  own  opinions  in 
every  other  portion  of  this  wide-spread  republic,  adds  an  overwhelming  and 
irresistible  moral  weight  to  the  strength  of  the  confederacy. 

Affection  for  the  Union  can  never  be  alienated  or  diminished  by  any  other 
party  issues  than  those  which  are  joined  upon  sectional  or  geographical  lines. 
"When  the  people  of  the  North  shall  all  be  rallied  under  one  banner,  and  the 
whole  South  marshaled  under  another  banner,  and  each  section  excited  to 
frenzy  and  madness  by  hostility  to  the  institutions  of  the  other,  then  the  pat 
riot  may  well  tremble  for  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union.  Withdraw  the  slavery 
question  from  the  political  arena,  and  remove  it  to  the  states  and  territories, 
each  to  decide  for  itself,  such  a  catastrophe  can  never  happen.  Then  you  will 
never  be  able  to  tell,  by  any  senator's  vote  for  or  against  any  measure,  from 
what  state  or  section  of  the  Union  he  comes. 

"Why,  then,  can  we  not  withdraw  this  vexed  question  from  politics  ?  "Why 
can  we  not  adopt  the  principle  of  this  bill  as  a  rule  of  action  in  all  new  terri 
torial  organizations  ?  Why  can  we  not  deprive  these  agitators  of  their  voca 
tion,  and  render  it  impossible  for  senators  to  come  here  upon  bargains  on  the 
slavery  question?  I  believe  that  the  peace,  the  harmony,  and  perpetuity  of 
the  Union  require  us  to  go  back  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Revolution,  to  the 
principles  of  the  Constitution,  to  the  principles  of  the  compromise  of  1850, 
and  leave  the  people,  under  the  Constitution,  to  do  as  they  may  see  proper  in 
respect  to  their  own  internal  affairs. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  not  brought  this  question  forward  as  a  northern  man 
or  as  a  southern  man.  I  am  unwilling  to  recognize  such  divisions  and  dis 
tinctions.  I  have  brought  it  forward  as  an  American  senator,  representing  a 
state  which  is  true  to  this  principle,  and  which  has  approved  of  my  action  in 
respect  to  the  Nebraska  Bill.  I  have  brought  it  forward  not  as  an  act  of  just 
ice  to  the  South  more  than  to  the  North.  I  have  presented  it  especially  as  an 
act  of  justice  to  the  people  of  those  territories,  and  of  the  states  to  be  formed 
therefrom,  now  and  in  all  time  to  come. 

I  have  nothing  to  say  about  northern  rights  or  southern  rights.  I  know 
of  no  such  divisions  or  distinctions  under  the  Constitution.  The  bill  does 
equal  and  exact  justice  to  the  whole  Union,  and  every  part  of  it;  it  violates 
the  rights  of  no  state  or  territory,  but  places  each  on  a  perfect  equality,  and 
leaves  the  people  thereof  to  the  free  enjoyment  of  all  their  rights  under  the 
Constitution. 

Now,  sir,  I  wish  to  say  to  our  southern  friends,  that  if  they  desire  to  see 
this  great  principle  carried  out,  now  is  their  time  to  rally  around  it,  to  cherish 
it,  preserve  it,  make  it  the  rule  of  action  in  all  future  time.  If  they  fail  to  do 
it  now,  and  thereby  allow  the  doctrine  of  interference  to  prevail,  upon  their 
heads  the  consequence  of  that  interference  must  rest.  To  our  northern  friends, 
on  the  other  hand,  I  desire  to  say,  that  from  this  day  henceforward,  they 


THE   KANSAS-NEBRASKA    ACT.  261 

must  rebuke  the  slander  which  has  been  uttered  against  the  South,  that  they 
desire  to  legislate  slavery  into  the  territories.  The  South  has  vindicated  her 
sincerity,  her  honor,  on  that  point,  by  bringing  forward  a  provision,  negativing, 
in  express  terms,  any  such  effect  as  a  result  of  this  bill.  I  am  rejoiced  to 
know  that,  while  the  proposition  to  abrogate  the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri 
act  comes  from  a  free  state,  the  proposition  to  negative  the  conclusion  that 
slavery  is  thereby  introduced  comes  from  a  slaveholding  state.  Thus,  both 
sides  furnish  conclusive  evidence  that  they  go  for  the  principle,  and  the  prin 
ciple  only,  and  desire  to  take  no  advantage  of  any  possible  misconstruction. 

Mr.  President,  I  feel  that  I  owe  an  apology  to  the  Senate  for  having  occu 
pied  their  attention  so  long,  and  a  still  greater  apology  for  having  discussed 
the  question  in  such  an  incoherent  and  desultory  manner.  But  I  could  not 
forbear  to  claim  the  right  of  closing  this  debate.  I  thought  gentlemen  would 
recognize  its  propriety  when  they  saw  the  manner  in  which  I  was  assailed 
and  misrepresented  in  the  course  of  this  discussion,  and  especially  by  assaults 
still  more  disreputable  to  some  portions  of  the  country.  These  assaults  have 
had  no  other  effect  upon  me  than  to  give  me  courage  and  energy  for  a  still 
more  resolute  discharge  of  duty.  I  say  frankly  that,  in  my  opinion,  this 
measure  will  be  as  popular  at  the  North  as  at  the  South,  when  its  provisions 
and  principles  shall  have  been  fully  developed  and  become  well  understood. 
The  people  at  the  North  are  attached  to  the  principles  of  self-government ; 
and  you  cannot  convince  them  that  that  is  self-government  which  deprives  a 
people  of  the  right  of  legislating  for  themselves,  and  compels  them  to  receive 
laws  which  are  forced  upon  them  by  a  Legislature  in  which  they  are  not  re 
presented.  "We  are  willing  to  stand  upon  this  great  principle  of  self-govern 
ment  everywhere ;  and  it  is  to  us  a  proud  reflection  that,  in  this  whole  discus 
sion,  no  friend  of  the  bill  has  urged  an  argument  in  its  favor  which  could  not 
be  used  with  the  same  propriety  in  a  free  state  as  in  a  slave  state,  and  vice 
versa.  But  no  enemy  of  the  bill  has  used  an  argument  which  would  bear 
repetition  one  mile  across  Mason  and  Dixon's  line.  Our  opponents  have  dealt 
entirely  in  sectional  appeals.  The  friends  of  the  bill  have  discussed  a  great 
principle  of  universal  application,  which  can  be  sustained  by  the  same  reasons, 
and  the  same  arguments,  in  every  time  and  in  every  corner  of  the  Union. 

PRESIDENT   PIERCE    AND   THE   NEBRASKA   BILL. 

A  strong  effort  was  made  at  the  time  the  Kansas  Nebraska 
Bill  was  introduced  to  withhold  from  President  Pierce  the 
full  measure  of  justice  touching  his  support  of  that  measure, 
particularly  that  provision  repealing  the  Missouri  restriction. 
The  enemies  of  the  bill  sought  every  means  to  sow  discord 
among  its  friends,  and  the  most  wretched  slanders  were  indus 
triously  circulated.  These  continued  long  after  the  bill  had 
become  a  law.  As  late  as  October  "6,  1855,  the  New  York 
Post,  speaking  of  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  restriction,  re 
peated  a  whole  series  of  them,  condensed  into  the  following 
paragraph : 

"  Douglas  was  at  first  hostile  to  the  scheme.  He  refused,  as  chairman  of 
the  Committee  on  Territories,  to  propose  Atchison's  repealing  amendment 
to  the  Nebraska  Bill.  Cass  was  opposed  to  it ;  and  when  introduced  at  last 
by  Douglas,  who  surrendered  to  Atchison,  Cass  admitted  in  his  speech, 
prefatory  to  his  voting  for  it,  that  it  was  dangerous  and  unnecessary.  The 
President  was  opposed  to  it,  as  was  disclosed  by  the  Union,  which  opposed 


262  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  when  first  broached  in  Douglas'  am 
biguous  bill,  although  the  editor  is,  and  was  known  at  the  time  to  be,  zeal 
ous  for  the  repeal.  His  holding  back  was  merely  in  respect  to  the  President's 
scruples,  who  was  doubly  committed  against  the  resurrection  of  the  slave 
struggle,  first  by  his  inaugural  address,  and  then  in  his  maiden  message  to 
Congress." 

On  the  9th  of  October,  185  5,  the  Washington  Union  contained 
the  following  authentic  denial  of  the  slanders,  and  an  equally 
authoritative  exposition  of  the  position  of  President  Pierce  : 

"  This  is  a  total  perversion  of  the  history  of  the  Nebraska  Bill  and  of  the 
introduction  into  it  of  the  clause  repealing  the  Missouri  restriction.  It  is 
not  true  that  either  Senators  Douglas  or  Cass,  or  President  Pierce,  was  ever 
opposed  to  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  restriction.  These  statesmen  were 
the  early,  the  earnest,  and  the  consistent  advocates  of  the  principle  of  con 
gressional  non-intervention  in  the  territories,  and  of  necessity  were  opposed 
to  the  recognition  by  act  of  Congress  of  the  Missouri  restriction,  which  was 
in  direct  conflict  with  that  principle.  The  only  question  that  presented  it 
self  to  Senator  Douglas,  as  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories,  was 
whether  the  Nebraska  Bill  should  be  drawn  in  the  language  of  the  Compro 
mise  of  1850,  and  be  a  litteral  copy  of  the  New  Mexico  and  Utah  Bills,  so 
far  as  the  slavery  question  was  concerned,  and  therefore  be  a  repeal  of  the 
Missouri  restriction  by  necessary  'implication,  or  whether,  in  addition  to  the 
language  of  the  Compromise  of  1850,  there  should  be  a  clause  expressly  re 
pealing  the  Missouri  restriction." 

****** 

"After  the  bill  was  introduced  the  abolition  leaders  in  Congress  denounced 
it  with  violence  as  a  violation  of  the  Missouri  compact ;  moreover,  doubts 
were  suggested  by  southern  men  as  to  whether  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise  was  so  clear  as  to  satisfy  slave-owners  that  they  might  settle  in 
the  territory  and  risk  a  judicial  decision  as  to  their  property  with  safety.  On 
the  other  hand  it  was  suggested  by  northern  men  that  there  was  no  doubt 
about  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise ;  but  there  was  doubt  whether 
the  legal  effect  thereof  was  not  to  revive  the  Louisiana  law  of  1803,  by 
which  Nebraska  was  slave  territory.  To  remove  all  room  for  doubt,  and  to 
free  the  question  of  non-intervention  in  Nebraska  from  all  controversy,  Sena 
tor  Douglas  himself  brought  forward  the  amendments  which  placed  the  bill 
in  the  shape  in  which  it  passed. 

"It  is  due  to  the  truth  of  history  to  state,  also,  that  the  amendments  were 
seen  and  approved  by  President  Pierce  and  General  Cass  before  they  were 
offered  in  the  Senate  by  Senator  Douglas.  These  three  gentlemen  were  the 
earnest  and  consistent  advocates  of  the  Nebraska  Bill,  from  its  inception  to  its 
final  passage,  and  we  are  entirely  certain  that  its  legal  effect  in  the  shape  in 
which  it  passed  is  identically  that  which  they  attributed  to  it  in  the  shape  in 
which  Mr.  Douglas  first  introduced  it.  "We  go  further,  and  affirm,  with  entire 
confidence  in  our  ability  to  maintain  the  assertion,  that  the  bill  as  it  finally 
passed  does  not  differ  in  the  slightest  degree  in  principle  from  the  Compro 
mise  of  1850." 

We  have  thought  this  much  due  to  Gen.  Pierce.  The  Ne 
braska  Bill  was  not  forced  upon  his  administration.  He  was 
not  a  man  to  submit  to  a  wrong,  or  to  acquiesce  in  a  wrong. 
It  was  his  measure — having  his  full  approval  before  it  was 
proposed  to  Congress. 


KNOW-NOTHINGISM   AND   ANTI-NEBRASKAIS3I.  263 


CHAPTER  XI. 

KNOW-NOTHINGISM   AND   ANTI-NEBRASKAISM. 

WHEN  the  bill  passed  Congress,  the  storm  of  hostility  to  its 
enactment  was  in  full  progress.  The  vote  in  the  House  upon 
its  passage  was  classified  as  follows  : 

For.  Against. 

Democrats,  non-slaveholding  states 43  43 

"          slaveholding  states 57  4 

Whigs,  non-slaveholding  states —  44 

"       slaveholding  states 13  5 

Free-soilers —  4 

Tl3  100 

The  action  upon  this  bill  separated  the  Northern  and  South 
ern  Whigs.  During  the  winter  and  spring  there  had  been  or 
ganizing,  under  the  powerful  appliances  of  secrecy  and  mys 
tery,  a  new  party.  At  first  it  was  known  as  the  "  Know-noth 
ing"  party,  under  which  style  it  continued  to  be  known  as  long- 
as  it  was  successful,  after  which  it  adopted  the  general  title  of 
the  "  American"  party. 

The  Nebraska  Bill  had  a  very  large  number  of  opponents 
among  the  Democracy  of  the  Northern  States.  The  Abolition 
leaders  at  the  North  proposed  a  union  of  men  of  all  parties, 
having  for  its  object  the  exclusion  from  Congress  of  every 
Northern  man  who  had  voted  for  the  bill.  Into  this  unfortu 
nate  movement  a  very  large  number  of  Democrats  thoughtless 
ly  plunged.  The  new  party  was  styled  the  "  Anti-Nebraska" 
or  "  Fusion"  party,  being  a  combination  of  the  Abolitionists, 
Free-soilers,  Anti-Nebraska  Democrats,  Whigs,  and  Know- 
nothings.  It  was  under  the  deluding  misrepresentations  of 
the  real  terms  and  objects  of  the  Nebraska  Bill,  and  not  be 
cause  of  any  affection  for  the  prescriptive  doctrines  of  the 
Know-nothings,  that  thousands  of  Democrats  were  eventually 
led  on  step  by  step,  until  they  found  themselves  sworn  mem 
bers  of  the  dark-lantern  order.  The  combination  was  soon  a 
powerful  one.  It  controlled  cities,  states,  and  sections.  Ev 
ery  where  the  new  party  pledged  itself  to  the  most  ultra  doc- 


264  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

trines  upon  the  subject  of  slavery.  The  hostility  toward  Cath 
olics  and  foreigners  was  revived  in  a  new  and  most  bitter 
spirit.  It  was  no  longer  the  open  and  fearless  hostility  such 
as  culminated  in  1844  in  the  church-burning  riots  in  Philadel 
phia.  The  operations  were  in  secret.  Its  members  were  un 
known  ;  no  man  could  tell  whether  his  neighbor  in  the  coun 
cils  of  his  own  party  was  or  was  not  a  member  of  the  secret 
order.  Men  and  parties  were  paralyzed.  Who  would  dare 
encounter  the  new  political  monster,  whose  organization  Avas 
extended  to  all  parts  of  the  country,  and  embraced  men  of  all 
parties  ?  It  sprung  up  rapidly.  In  May  the  Know-nothings, 
aided  by  the  Anti-Nebraska  men,  elected  their  candidate  for 
mayor  in  Philadelphia  by  six  thousand  majority.  This  elec 
tion  demonstrated  its  political  power.  Political  leaders  coun 
seled  conciliatory  measures  ;  others  favored  an  acquiescence  in 
its  rule.  The  Whig  party  was  swallowed  up  in  the  capacious 
portals  of  the  mysterious  lodges.  Necessarily  acting  with  it, 
if  not  indeed  actually  enrolled  as  members,  were  the  Anti-Ne 
braska  Democrats,  Abolitionists,  and  Free-son1  ers.  Who  was 
to  encounter  this  new  and  formidable  political  party  ?  It  was 
to  be  crushed  by  the  Democratic  party,  or  it  would  soon  crush 
the  latter.  But  who  in  the  Democratic  party  would  under 
take  the  task  of  denouncing  a  party  of  whose  principles  so  lit 
tle  w^as  known,  and  whose  organization  and  membership  were 
so  mysterious  ?  Though  Congress  was  in  session,  not  a  speech 
was  made  upon  the  subject.  Every  day  it  became  more  evi 
dent  that  the  Democratic  party  alone  would  have  to  encounter 
the  Know-nothing  party  and  its  allies,  yet  there  were  but  few 
willing  or  sufficiently  posted  to  open  the  contest. 

Mr.  Douglas  was  at  the  North  on  a  business  visit,  and  stop 
ped,  on  his  return  to  Washington,  in  Philadelphia  to  pass  the 
4th  of  July.  It  has  been  an  immemorial  custom  for  the  De 
mocracy  in  that  city  to  celebrate  the  4th  of  July  by  an  ora 
tion  in  Independence  Square.  The  committee  of  arrange 
ments,  hearing  of  Mr.  Douglas's  presence  in  the  city,  called  on 
him  with  a  request  to  address  the  meeting.  He  consented,  but 
frankly  told  them  that  if  he  spoke  he  would  necessarily  touch 
upon  the  Nebraska  Bill  and  Know-nothingism — the  two  "  del 
icate  questions"  which  timid  men  at  that  day  did  all  in  their 
power  to  avoid.  After  some  conversation  upon  this  matter,  it 
was  agreed  that  Mr.  Douglas  should  be  allowed  to  speak  his 


KNOW-NOTHINGISM   AND   ANTI-NEBBASKAISM.  265 

own  sentiments  in  his  own  way.  He  addressed  that  meeting 
that  day.  It  was  the  first  speech  ever  delivered  in  the  United 
States  by  any  prominent  public  man,  since  the  organization  of 
the  Know-nothing  party,  against  the  prescriptive  principles  of 
that  party.  It  was  received  by  the  Democracy  of  Philadelphia 
with  enthusiastic  delight.  It  broke  the  spell  which  had  ap 
parently  hung  over  the  party,  and  which  had  closed  men's  lips 
and  paralyzed  their  hands  respecting  the  most  dangerous  and 
insidious  opponents  that  ever  threatened  the  Democratic  party. 
He  spoke  out  words  of  condemnation  and  defiance ;  and  men, 
taking  courage  from  his  bold  words,  felt  relieved,  and,  giving 
vent  to  the  feelings  so  long  held  in  subjection,  recognized  in 
the  orator  the  bold  and  daring  statesman  who  never  yet,  in 
any  part  of  his  eventful  career,  paused  in  defense  of  the  right 
or  condemnation  of  the  wrong  to  inquire  what  would  be  the 
consequences  of  his  action  toward  himself  personally. 

From  that  day  forth  Know-nothingism  had  a  stern  oppo 
nent  in  the  Democratic  party,  and  from  that  day  forth  the 
Democracy  never  faltered  until  it  had  subdued,  conquered,  and 
broken  up  the  organization  in  the  Northern  States.  This 
speech  was  printed  in  pamphlet  form  and  widely  circulated. 
Though  that  part  of  it  relating  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  is 
in  the  main  a  repetition  of  sentiments  advanced  by  him  in  the 
Senate  during  the  pendency  of  the  bill,  it  is  just  that  it  should 
be  here  given.  It  was  the  first  speech  made  outside  of  Con 
gress  in  defense  of  the  bill ;  and  as  it  is  fashionable  in  some 
quarters  to  say  that  he  then  represented  that  bill  as  meaning 
something  very  different  to  what  he  now  claims  for  it,  it  is  but 
just  that  his  exposition  then  should  be  placed  alongside  of  his 
exposition  of  the  same  measure  now.  He  said : 

Mr.  President  and  Fellow-citizens : 

While  I  am  profoundly  grateful  for  the  generous  enthusiasm  with  which 
you  have  received  the  kind  remarks  of  my  friend  General  Dawson,  J  know  not 
whether  I  ought  to  make  my  acknowledgments  to  him  for  having  created  in 
your  minds  expectations  which  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  fulfill.  I  feel  that 
it  is  good  for  us  to  be  here  on  this  day.  The  day  and  the  place  are  conse 
crated  to  liberty.  It  is  a  hallowed  spot.  I  enter  Independence  Square — I 
approach  Independence  Hall  on  the  Fourth  of  July  with  feelings  akin  to 
those  of  the  pilgrim  when  he  approaches  the  holy  places.  It  is  the  birth 
place  of  American  liberty.  Here  the  Declaration  of  Indepsndcnce  was  first 
promulgated — here  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  formed.  On 
this  very  spot  were  proclaimed  in  that  declaration  and  embodied  in  that 
Constitution  those  glorious  principles  of  civil  and  religious  freedom  which 
our  fathers  have  transmitted  to  us  as  the  most  precious  of  all  earthly  bless 
ings.  [Great  applause,! 

M 


266  LIFE   OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

In  these  days,  when  efforts  are  being  made  to  stir  up  sectional  strife,  and 
organize  political  parties  on  geographical  lines — when  religious  intolerance 
and  persecution  are  being  practiced  through  the  agency  of  secret  associations 
— and  when  men  in  high  places  sacrilegiously  deny  all  obligation  to  carry 
into  effect  the  plain  and  imperative  injunctions  of  the  Constitution  which 
they  have  sworn  to  support,  it  is  well  for  good  men  and  true  patriots  to  as 
semble  on  our  national  birthday,  at  the  birthplace  of  our  liberties,  and  unite 
their  efforts  to  preserve  our  republican  institutions  by  perpetuating  the  prin 
ciples  upon  which  they  rest.  [Applause.] 

On  the  4th  of  July,  '76,  from  the  place  where  I  now  stand,  our  forefathers 
declared  that  these  "  COLONIES  ARE,  AND  OP  EIGHT  OUGHT  TO  BE,  FREE  AND 
INDEPENDENT  STATES."  That  was  the  starting-point.  Thirteen  British  col 
onies  were  on  that  day  converted  into  thirteen  independent  American  states. 
The  language  is  clear  and  explicit.  The  causes  which  led  to  the  separation, 
and  the  instructions  which  the  several  colonies  gave  to  their  delegates  in  the 
Congress,  prescribing  the  conditions  upon  which  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence  was  to  be  made,  clearly  show  why  this  emphatic  language  was 
used.  The  colonies  did  not,  in  the  first  instance,  demand  independence. 
They  were  willing  to  acknowledge  their  allegiance  to  the  British  crown,  pro 
vided  they  were  left  free  to  manage  and  regulate  their  own  internal  affairs 
and  domestic  concerns  in  their  own  way,  without  the  interference  or  dictation 
of  the  imperial  government.  They  were  ivilling  to  recognize  the  right  of  Great 
Britain  to  grant  colonial  charters,  like  the  organic  laws  of  our  Territorial  govern 
ments,  by  which  the  people  of  the  colonies  might  make  their  own  laws  through 
their  representatives  in  their  local  Legislatures ;  but  they  solemnly  protested 
against  the  right  of  the  imperial  Parliament,  in  which  they  had  no  repre 
sentation,  to  make  laws  affecting  their  persons  and  property  without  their 
consent.  Upon  this  point  the  separation  took  place,  and  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  which  you  have  just  heard  read  declared  the  thirteen  colonies 
to  be  "  free  and  independent  states."  But,  before  the  declaration  was  made, 
the  colonies  gave  instructions  to  their  delegates,  prescribing  the  conditions 
upon  which  each  would  consent  to  such  a  declaration.  These  instructions 
all  prescribe  the  fundamental  condition  that  the  people  of  each  colony  shall 
have  the  right  to  manage  their  internal  affairs  and  domestic  concerns  as  to  them 
shall  seem  meet  and  proper.  [Hearty  cheers.] 

[Mr.  Douglas  recapitulated  some  facts  of  history,  and  then  proceeded  as 
follows :] 

Crime,  in  any  of  its  forms  and  shapes,  is  a  very  great  evil  in  any  state  or 
Territory ;  yet  Congress  has  never  presumed  to  enact  criminal  codes  for  the 
Territories  and  new  states — to  declare  what  shall  and  what  shall  not  be 
deemed  criminal — to  prescribe  the  penalty  and  point  out  the  mode  of  pun 
ishment.  These  things  have  always  been  left,  and,  I  trust,  always  will  be 
left,  to  the  people  of  the  different  states  and  Territories,  to  be  determined  by 
them  through  their  local  Legislatures  in  accordance  with  their  sense  of  right 
and  duty.  Why  should  we  make  an  exception  of  the  Slavery  question,  and 
apply  to  it  a  rule  which  is  admitted  to  be  unsound  and  subversive  of  consti 
tutional  right  when  applied  to  any  other  matter  of  local  and  domestic  con 
cern  ?  Are  not  the  people  of  the  Territories  capable  of  self-government  ? 
If  not,  why  give  them  a  Legislature  at  all — why  allow  them  to  make  laws 
upon  any  subject  ?  If  they  are  capable  of  self-government,  does  it  require 
any  higher  degree  of  intelligence  to  legislate  for  the  negro  than  for  the  white 
man,  or  to  prescribe  the  relations  of  master  and  servant  than  those  of  hus 
band  and  wife,  and  parent  and  child  ? 

But,  in  order  to  excuse  themselves  for  so  palpable  a  repudiation  of  the 
great  principle  of  self-government,  the  Abolitionists  tell  us  that  slavery  is  a 
violation  of  the  law  of  God,  and  therefore  the  people  of  the  Territories  and 


KNOW-NOTHINGISM   AND  ANTI-NEBKASKAISM.  267 

new  states  should  not  be  intrusted  with  the  decision  of  the  question  as  pro 
vided  in  the  Nebraska  Bill.  Without  stopping  to  inquire  into  the  sinfulness 
of  slavery  as  a  religious  question,  I  do  maintain  that  the  mode  provided  in 
the  Nebraska  Bill  for  determining  the  controversy  of  its  existence  or  exclu 
sion,  by  referring  it  to  the  decision  of  the  people,  who  are  immediately  inter 
ested  and  alone  responsible,  is  strictly  in  accordance  with  the  divine  law. 
When  God  created  man,  He  placed  before  him  good  and  evil,  and  endowed 
him  with  the  capacity  to  decide  for  himself,  and  held  him  responsible  for  the 
consequences  of  the  choice  he  might  make.  [Tremendous  applause  and 
cheers.] 

This  is  the  divine  origin  of  the  great  principle  of  self-government.  [Ap 
plause.]  The  Almighty  breathed  the  principle  into  the  nostrils  of  the  first 
man  in  the  garden  of  Eden,  and  empowered  him  and  his  descendants  in  all 
time  to  choose  their  own  form  of  government,  and  to  bear  the  evils  and  en 
joy  the  blessings  of  their  own  deeds.  The  principle  applies  to  communities, 
and  Territories,  and  states,  as  well  as  to  individual  men.  The  principle 
applies  to  Kansas  as  well  as  to  Pennsylvania — to  Nebraska  as  well  as  to  Vir 
ginia.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  in  perfect  accord  with  this 
divine  principle,  leaving  each  state,  and  the  people  thereof,  at  liberty  to  gov 
ern  themselves  and  reap  the  harvest  of  the  seed  they  may  sow.  [Immense 
applause— cries,  "That  is  right,"  "that  is  right."] 

I  repeat,  therefore,  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  does  not  es 
tablish  slavery,  nor  abolish  it  any  where ;  nor  does  it  either  enlarge  or  dimin 
ish  its  area.  It  recognizes  and  protects  all  the  institutions  of  the  different 
states,  however  dissimilar  or  whatever  their  character,  provided  they  are  not 
in  conflict  with  any  of  its  provisions.  Wherever  slavery  exists  in  any  state 
by  virtue  of  the  local  law,  there  the  Constitution  recognizes  and  protects  the 
institution ;  and  wherever  slavery  is  prohibited  by  the  local  law,  the  Consti 
tution  recognizes  and  protects  the  prohibition  in  such  state.  The  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  to  which  all  must 
yield  implicit  obedience.  [Applause.] 

It  authorizes  Congress  to  legislate  upon  the  subject  of  slavery  in  two  cases 
only :  first,  for  the  suppression  of  the  foreign  slave-trade ;  and,  second,  for 
the  surrender  of  fugitives  from  service.  Congress  has  exerted  in  good  faith 
the  full  measures  of  its  authority  in  both  cases.  The  Abolitionists  avow  their 
willingness  to  abide  by  the  Constitution  and  law  in  the  one  case,  where  the 
introduction  of  any  more  slaves  into  the  United  States  is  prohibited,  for  the 
reason  that  the  result  is  in  harmony  with  their  views.  But  in  the  other  case, 
where  the  act  of  Congress  was  passed  for  the  express  purpose  of  carrying  into 
effect  a  plain  provision  of  the  Constitution,  by  returning  the  slave  to  his  mas 
ter,  these  same  Abolitionists  say  they  will  not  abide  by  the  law — they  will 
trample  upon  the  Constitution — they  will  set  at  defiance  the  constituted  au 
thorities,  and  bear  aloft  the  standard  of  rebellion  against  the  federal  govern 
ment,  for  the  reason  that  this  clause  of  the  Constitution  and  the  law  for  car 
rying  it  into  effect  do  not  harmonize  with  their  views.  Their  doctrine  is  that 
they  will  abide  by  and  claim  the  benefit  of  the  Constitution  and  laws  when 
ever  and  wherever  they  tend  to  advance  their  peculiar  theories  and  opinions ; 
and,  on  the  contrary,  they  will  resist  both  the  Constitution  and  laws,  with 
force  and  violence,  whenever  that  line  of  policy  is  necessary  to  the  accom 
plishment  of  their  philanthropic  views  upon  the  subject  of  slavery. 

KNOW-NOTHINGISM. 

Efforts  are  now  being  made  to  organize  a  new  party — a  great  Northern, 
sectional  party — upon  the  abolition  platform,  and  carry  on  an  offensive  war 
against  the  local  and  domestic  institutions  of  one  half  of  the  states  of  the  Un 
ion,  under  a  banner  which  shall  proclaim  to  the  world  that  they  claim  for 


268  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

themselves  the  protection  of  the  Constitution  which  they  deny  to  those  upon 
whose  rights  they  make  war — that  the  Constitution  is  binding  upon  their  op 
ponents,  but  not  upon  themselves — and  that  they  hold  themselves  at  liberty 
at  all  times  to  obey  or  resist  it,  as  may  best  suit  their  purposes.  Whatever 
name  shall  be  given  to  this  new  political  organization — whether  it  shall  be 
called  Whig,  Abolition,  Free-soil,  or  Know-nothing — it  will  still  be  the  antag 
onism  of  the  Democratic  party.  Whatever  may  be  the  nature  of  the  contest 
or  the  prospects  of  success,  the  Democracy  of  the  nation  must  stand  firmly 
by  the  Constitution  as  it  is,  yielding  implicit  obedience  to  all  of  its  obliga 
tions,  and  carrying  into  faithful  execution  all  of  its  provisions.  [Cheers  and 
continued  applause.]  We  must  maintain  the  supremacy  of  the  laws,  put 
down  resistance  and  violence  wherever  they  may  occur,  and  be  ready  to  pun 
ish  the  traitors  whenever  the  overt  act  of  treason  shall  be  committed.  [Tre 
mendous  cheers  and  applause.] 

Fellow-citizens,  it  has  been  said  that  in  the  bosom  of  this  new  political  or 
ganization  there  is  a  secret  society  bound  together  by  the  most  solemn  and 
terrible  oaths —  /  Tcnoio  not  its  name — [Laughter.  ]  Inquire  of  whom  you 
may,  and  the  answer  will  be,  "I  don't  know."  [Roars  of  laughter.]  And 
from  all  the  information  I  can  get,  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  "know- 
nothings"  is  their  name.  [Tremendous  roars  of  laughter.] 

I  was  about  to  say,  and  I  presume  that  the  facts  connected  with  your  re 
cent  election  in  this  city  have  furnished  you  with  sufficient  evidence  upon 
the  subject — I  have  been  informed  that  there  exists  in  the  bosom  of  this  new 
political  organization  a  secret  political  society,  bound  together  by  the  most 
terrible  oaths,  to  proscribe  every  man,  whether  naturalized  or  not,  or  what 
ever  his  political  or  religious  sentiments,  who  had  the  misfortune  to  be  born 
in  a  foreign  clime,  and,  like  our  ancestors,  driven  by  political  or  religious 
persecutions  to  flee  from  their  native  land  and  seek  an  asylum  in  America. 
Is  there  such  an  organization  among  you?  [Criesof  "Yes,"  "yes."  "There 
is,"  "there  is."] 

It  is  also  said,  and  with  how  much  truth  you  have  much  better  opportuni 
ties  of  knowing  than  I,  for  of  this  I  know  nothing  [roars  of  laughter],  that  this 
secret  society,  which  controls  the  nominations  and  directs  the  movements  of 
the  allied  forces  against  the  Democracy,  binds  its  members  by  the  most  sol 
emn  obligations  to  proscribe  every  man  who  worships  God  according  to  the 
Roman  Catholic  faith,  no  matter  to  what  race  he  may  belong,  or  where  he 
was  born.  [Cries  "That  is  it,"  "They  do."]  It  is  also  said  that  your  re 
cent  city  election  was  controlled  by  this  society ;  that  your  city  government 
is  now  being  managed  under  its  auspices,  and  that  the  whole  patronage  of 
the  city  is  distributed  under  its  direction  and  in  accordance  with  its  principles 
of  proscription.  [Cries  "That  is  so,"  "It  is,"  "it  is,"  from  all  sides.] 

This  secret  society,  whose  members  profess  to  "know  nothing"  with  the 
view  of  concealing  their  political  designs,  are  said  to  have  their  branches  and 
auxiliary  societies  in  every  city,  town,  and  village,  and  to  be  in  alliance  with 
this  great  northern  sectional  party,  which  proclaims  open  war  upon  the  in 
stitutions  of  one  half  of  the  states  and  upon  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  It  is  not  surprising  that  a  political  society,  whose  efficient  secret  or 
ganization  enables  them  to  conceal  their  plans  while  they  hold  out  induce 
ments  of  power  and  patronage  to  persons  to  assume  their  prescriptive  obliga 
tions,  with  the  assurance  that  they  can  conceal  the  hand  which  strikes  the 
blow,  and  thus  avoid  the  odium  and  responsibility  of  the  act,  while  they  revel 
in  the  spoils  of  victory — I  say  it  is  not  surprising  that  such  a  political  organ 
ization  should  prove  formidable  and  even  irresistible  in  its  first  efforts,  when 
the  specific  objects  and  principles  of  the  society  were  unknown  to  the  com 
munity,  and  before  the  people  could  be  aroused  to  a  just  sense  of  their  dan 
ger.  I  speak  of  the  society  and  of  its  principles  of  action  here  and  wherev- 


KNOW-NOTHINGISM   AND   ANTI-NEBKASKAISM.  269 

er  else  they  have  triumphed  in  the  recent  elections ;  for  I  am  not  aware  that 
I  am  personally  acquainted  with  any  one  man  who  has  taken  upon  himself 
their  obligations  and  enrolled  his  name  upon  their  books. 

No  principle  of  political  action  could  have  been  devised  more  hostile  to 
the  genius  of  our  institutions,  more  repugnant  to  the  Constitution  than  those 
which  are  said  to  form  the  test  of  membership  in  this  society  of  "  Know- 
nothings."  To  proscribe  a  man  in  this  country  on  account  of  his  birthplace 
or  religious  faith  is  subversive  of  all  our  ideas  and  principles  of  civil  and  re 
ligious  freedom.  It  is  revolting  to  our  sense  of  justice  and  right.  It  is  de 
rogatory  to  the  character  of  our  forefathers,  who  were  all  emigrants  from  the 
Old  World,  some  at  an  earlier  and  some  at  a  later  period.  They  once  bore 
allegiance  to  the  crowned  heads  of  Europe.  They,  too,  suffered  the  torments 
of  civil  and  religious  persecution,  the  fury  of  which  tore  them  from  their  na 
tive  homes,  and  forced  them  to  seek  new  ones  on  the  shores  of  America.  i 
Indeed,  the  settlement  of  this  continent,  the  development  of  the  thirteen 
united  colonies,  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  the  establishment  of 
this  glorious  republic,  may  all  be  traced  back  to  the  accursed  spirit  of  perse 
cution.  The  Pilgrim  fathers  fled  before  their  persecutors  from  England  to 
Holland,  and  thence  to  Plymouth  Rock,  that  they  might  be  permitted  to  wor 
ship  God  agreeably  to  their  own  faith.  The  same  spirit  compelled  the  Qua 
kers  to  seek  refuge  in  the  wilderness  under  William  Penn,  whose  name  they 
imparted  to  the  country  they  inhabited,  and  from  which  the  good  old  com 
monwealth  of  Pennsylvania  has  arisen  in  her  glory  and  majesty. 

Your  own  beautiful  city  of  Philadelphia  stands  a  living  monument,  and  I 
trust  it  may  stand  an  eternal  monument,  of  their  gratitude  to  God  for  hav 
ing  removed  them  from  the  scenes  of  their  troubles  to  a  quiet  and  peaceful 
home  on  the  banks  of  the  Delaware,  which,  in  the  fullness  of  their  hearts, 
and  in  faith  that  the  spirit  of  religious  persecution  would  never  again  reach 
them  noi»  spring  up  among  them,  they  called  the  "  CITY  OP  BROTHERLY 
LOVE."  [Cheers  and  applause.] 

The  Catholics,  who  in  turn  were  oppressed  and  pursued  by  those  who  had 
felt  the  rod  of  their  power,  found  an  asylum  upon  the  banks  of  the  Chesa 
peake,  and  called  their  little  colony  after  their  favorite  Queen  Mary,  to  which 
circumstance  the  State  of  Maryland  owes  her  name  and  her  origin. 

The  gallant  Cavaliers,  who,  after  having  persecuted  the  Pilgrims  and  driven 
them  from  the  kingdom  under  Charles  I.,  were  in  turn  routed  and  pursued 
by  Cromwell,  with  his  invincible  army  of  Roundheads,  until  they  fled  to  Vir 
ginia,  where  they  established  the  Church  of  England. 

The  Huguenots,  who  settled  in  South  Carolina,  were  also  refugees  from 
religious  persecution.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  different  colonies  were 
the  representatives  of  the  various  religious  sects  in  Europe,  who  had  each 
been  persecuted,  and  had  nearly  all  persecuted  each  other  in  turn,  until,  by 
the  strange  vicissitudes  of  fortune,  they  were  driven  from  their  native  land 
and  forced  to  seek  an  asylum  upon  this  continent,  where  each  could  be  pro 
tected  in  the  worship  of  God  in  accordance  with  the  faith  he  had  embraced. 
In  proportion  as  they  became  tolerant  and  just  in  matters  of  religion,  they 
became  liberal  and  enlightened  in  respect  to  the  true  principles  of  civil  gov 
ernment.  When  the  Revolution  broke  out,  in  defense  of  their  civil  and  po 
litical  rights  each  and  all  of  these  colonies  rallied  under  the  banner  of  their 
common  country.  The  Revolution  established  their  independence  by  con 
verting  the  dependent  colonies  into  distinct  sovereign  states,  yet  it  was  not 
until  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  that  their  liber' 
ties  were  consolidated  and  placed  on  a  firm  and  sure  basis.  In  the  Consti 
tution  it  was  provided  that  "NO  RELIGIOUS  TEST  SHALL  EVER  BE  REQUIRED 

AS  A  QUALIFICATION   TO  ANY  OFFICE   OR   PUBLIC  TRUST  UNDER  THE  UNITED 

STATES."     [Immense  applause.] 


270  LIFE    OP   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

This  provision  was  adopted  unanimously.  It  was  the  common  ground  of 
justice  and  equality,  upon  which  all  religious  denominations  could  stand  in 
harmony  and  security.  It  expressed  in  plain  language  the  true  principles  of 
religious  toleration,  the  correctness  and  necessity  of  which  had  been  thorough 
ly  vindicated  in  the  history  and  experience  of  each  of  the  colonies.  It  was 
heartily  concurred  in  by  Protestant  and  Catholic — by  Puritan  and  Cavalier 
— by  Quaker  and  Huguenot — each  and  all  of  the  religious  sects  and  denom 
inations  agreed  upon  this  great  principle  as  a  platform,  a  common  ground 
upon  which  they  and  their  descendants  in  all  future  time  could  and  would 
stand  in  the  bonds  of  brotherly  affection.  [Applause.] 

By  another  clause  of  the  Constitution  no  man  can  hold  any  office  under 
the  government  of  the  United  States,  or  under  any  of  the  state  governments, 
until  he  has  subscribed  an  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  This  oath  must  be  taken,  and  ought  to  be  kept,  not  only  by  presi 
dents,  and  governors,  and  judges,  but  by  the  mayors  of  vour  cities  and  all 
their  subordinates  in  office.  [Tremendous  cheers  and  applause.] 

Now,  fellow-citizens,  permit  me  to  inquire,  in  all  kindness,  how  can  the 
members  of  this  political  society,  called  "Know-nothings,"  take  upon  them 
selves  a  solemn  oath  by  which  they  shall  stand  pledged  to  raise  up  a  religious 
test  as  a  qualification  for  office,  in  the  very  teeth  of  the  Constitution,  by  pro 
scribing  men  on  account  of  their  religious  faith  ?  Will  they  excuse  them 
selves  upon  the  ground  that  they  did  not  know  of  this  clause  in  the  Constitu 
tion?  [Cheers  and  laughter.] 

Will  they  tell  us  that  they  did  not  know  the  history  of  their  own  country — 
that  they  did  not  know  of  the  sufferings  and  persecutions  to  which  their  fa 
thers  had  been  subjected  on  account  of  their  religious  faith — that  they  did 
not  know  that  the  obligations  and  principles  of  their  society  were  at  war  with 
the  genius  of  our  whole  republican  system  and  in  direct  conflict  with  the 
principles  of  the  Constitution?  [Loud  cheering.] 

If  they  did  not  know  these  things,  surely  there  was  wisdom  in  calling  them 
selves  "  KNOW-NOTHINGS."  [Tremendous  cheers  and  roars  of  laughter.] 

Those  who  do  not  know  should  be  made  to  learn  and  feel  that  the  Consti 
tution  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land ;  that  all  men  who  live  under  it,  and 
enjoy  its  protection,  must  yield  implicit  obedience  to  its  requirements,  in  all 
its  parts  and  provisions,  whether  they  like  them  or  not.  [Cheers  and  con 
tinued  applause.] 

Their  likes  or  dislikes  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  question.  We  live 
under  a  government  of  laws,  and  the  supremacy  of  the  laws  must  be  main 
tained,  no  matter  from  what  quarter  or  motive  the  resistance  may  come. 
[Great  applause.] 

The  equality  of  all  the  states  under  the  Constitution,  and  the  right  of  the 
people  to  decide  for  themselves  what  kind  of  local  and  domestic  institutions 
they  will  have,  are  cardinal  principles  in  the  Democratic  creed.  [Loud  and 
enthusiastic  cheers.] 

To  these  fundamental  propositions  let  me  add  another,  which  forms  the 
corner-stone  in  the  temple  of  our  liberties.  It  is,  that  all  men  have  an  in 
alienable  right  to  worship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  their  own  con 
science,  and  under  our  Constitution  no  man  ought  or  can  be  proscribed  on 
account  of  his  birthplace  or  of  his  religious  faith.  [Loud  cheers  and  ap 
plause.] 

These  are  the  issues  which  the  Democratic  party  of  the  nation  have  to  meet 
and  maintain  before  the  people  in  all  the  states.  Let  no  consideration  of 
partisan  policy  or  temporary  advantage  induce  us  to  swerve  a  hair's  breadth 
from  our  principles.  If  we  meet  the  questions  fairly  and  directly,  and  fight 
the  battle  boldly,  and  should  even  suffer  a  temporary  defeat,  yet  we  will  have 
the  proud  satisfaction  of  knowing  that  we  have  saved  our  honor  at  the  same 
time  that  a  glorious  triumph  awaits  us  in  the  future.  [Applause.] 


KNOW-NOTHINGISM   AND   ANTI-NEBKASKAISM.  271 

Then,  fellow-Democrats,  let  us  stand  by  our  arms  and  be  ready  to  fight  the 
allied  forces  of  Abolitionism,  Whigism,  Nativeism,  and  religious  intolerance, 
under  whatever  name  and  on  whatever  field  they  may  present  themselves. 
[Enthusiastic  cheers  and  tremendous  applause.] 

And  if,  after  struggling  as  our  forefathers  struggled  for  centuries  in  their 
native  laud  against  civil  and  religious  persecution,  we  and  our  children  shall 
be  finally  borne  down  and  trampled  under  the  heel  of  despotism,  we  can  still 
follow  their  example — flee  to  the  wilderness,  and  find  an  asylum  in  Nebras 
ka,  where  the  principles  of  self-government  have  been  firmly  established  in 
the  organic  act  which  recently  passed  Congress. 

This  speech  very  naturally  drew  upon  Mr.  Douglas  the  en 
mity  of  the  zealous  members  of  the  order.  It  was  the  first 
blow  aimed  at  them.  It  was  the  first  invocation  to  the  De 
mocracy  to  stand  by  their  principles  and  treat  the  Know-noth 
ings  as  their  political  enemies.  In  the  Western  States  the  or 
der  made  rapid  progress.  It  formed  the  centre  around  which 
all  and  every  description  of  political  interest  hpstile  to  the 
Democratic  party  rallied.  Though  the  Nebraska  Bill  had 
been  supported  by  a  majority  of  the  Democrats  in  Congress, 
and  had  been  approved  by  the  administration  of  General 
Pierce,  still  no  attempt  had  been  made  to  constitute  a  support 
of  it  a  test  of  Democracy.  But  those  Democrats  who  were 
hostile  to  it,  having  united  with  the  Abolitionists,  Free-soilers, 
and  Know-nothings  upon  a  platform  of  the  proscription  of 
every  supporter  of  the  bill,  its  friends  had,  as  a  matter  of  ne 
cessity,  to  rally  to  its  support  and  to  the  support  of  its  Con 
gressional  advocates. 

THE   CHICAGO    MOB   OF   1854. 

Congress  adjourned  about  the  first  of  August.  Mr.  Douglas 
left  Washington  soon  after,  and  reached  his  home  in  Chicago 
about  the  25th.  In  the  mean  time  there  had  been  extensive 
preparations  by  the  Know-nothings  and  their  allies  to  prevent 
any  appeal  by  him  to  the  people,  such  as  he  had  made  in  Phila 
delphia.  Some  of  the  reverend  gentlemen  with  whom  he  had 
had  a  controversy  about  their  remonstrance  took  an  active 
part  in  the  matter.  There  was  a  thorough  and  complete  or 
ganization  established  not  only  in  Chicago,  but  throughout  all 
the  northern  part  of  Illinois,  to  meet  him  every  where  with 
personal  insult,  and,  if  possible,  to  prevent  his  being  heard. 
After  he  had  been  in  the  city  some  days,  public  notice  was 
given  that,  on  the  night  of  the  1st  of  September,  he  would  ad 
dress  his  constituents  at  North  Market  Hall.  The  mayor  of 


272  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

the  city,  the  Hon.  I.  L.  Milikin,  was  invited  and  consented  to 
preside.  The  announcement  of  his  intention  to  speak  was  re 
ceived  with  great  excitement.  The  newspapers  warned  the 
public  to  be  there,  and  not  to  allow  him  to  deceive  the  people 
by  his  sophistries.  One  paper,  appealing  directly  to  the  preju 
dices  of  the  Know-nothings,  announced  that  Mr.  Douglas  had 
selected  a  body-guard  of  five  hundred  Irishmen,  who,  with 
arms  in  their  hands,  were  to  be  present,  and  compel  the  people 
to  silence  while  he  spoke,  and  thus  he  would  claim  that  they 
had,  by  not  objecting,  admitted  his  arguments  and  defense  to 
be  complete.  Strange  as  it  may  seem  that  such  a  statement 
should  obtain  credence  in  an  intelligent  community,  yet  the 
fact  is  unquestionable.  In  a  day  or  two  after,  another  paper, 
hostile  to  Mr.  Douglas,  declared  that  there  was  a  feverish  senti 
ment  prevailing  in  the  community  indicating  a  season  of  vio 
lence,  and  proved  its  assertion  by  citing  the  fact  that  every  re 
volver  and  pistol  in  the  stores  of  the  city  had  been  sold,  and 
that  there  were  orders  for  a  large  number  yet  unfilled. 

The  fact  that  violence  was  to  take  place  at  the  meeting  was 
daily  impressed  upon  the  public,  but  with  consummate  dexter 
ity  it  was  stated  that  Douglas  intended  to  overawe  the  public 
by  an  armed  demonstration.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  this 
was  utterly  destitute  of  truth.  All  he  asked,  all  he  desired, 
was  an  orderly  meeting,  that  he  might  be  heard  in  explanation 
and  defense  of  the  Nebraska  Bill. 

Under  such  circumstances  as  these  assembled  the  meeting 
on  that  September  evening.  During  the  afternoon  the  flags 
of  such  shipping  as  was  owned  by  the  most  bitter  of  the  Fusion- 
ists  were  hung  at  half-mast ;  at  dusk  the  bells  of  numerous 
churches  tolled  with  all  the  doleful  solemnity  that  might  be 
supposed  appropriate  for  some  impending  calamity.  As  the 
evening  closed  in,  crowds  flocked  to  the  place  of  meeting.  At 
a  quarter  before  eight  o'clock  Mr.  Douglas  commenced  to  ad 
dress  the  multitude.  The  whole  area  in  front  of  the  building, 
and  the  street  running  east  to  Dearborn  and  west  to  Clark 
Street,  were  soon  densely  packed.  The  roofs  of  houses  opposite, 
and  windows,  balconies,  and  every  available  standing-spot,  were 
occupied.  He  had  hardly  commenced  before  he  was  hailed 
with  a  storm  of  hisses ;  he  paused  until  silence  was  compara 
tively  restored,  when  he  told  the  meeting  that  he  came  there 
to  address  his  constituents,  and  intended  to  be  heard.  He  was 


KNOW-NOTHINGISM   AND   ANTI-NEBKASKAISM.  273 

instantly  assailed  by  all  manner  of  epithets  and  abuse.  He 
stood  his  ground  firmly,  contesting  with  that  maddened  and 
excited  crowd.  His  friends — and  he  had  friends  there,  warm, 
devoted,  and  unyielding  Democrats — were  indignant,  and  were 
disposed  to  resent  some  of  the  most  indecent  outrages.  Mr. 
Douglas  appealed  to  them  to  be  calm ;  to  leave  him  to  deal 
with  the  mob  before  him.  He  denounced  the  violence  exhib 
ited  as  a  preconcerted  thing,  and  in  defiance  of  yells,  groans, 
cat-calls,  and  every  insulting  menace  and  threat,  he  read  aloud, 
so  that  it  was  heard  above  the  infernal  din,  a  letter  informing 
him  that,  if  he  dared  to  speak,  he  would  be  maltreated. 

We  never  saw  such  a  scene  before,  and  hope  never  to  see 
the  like  again.  What  we  have  described  is  a  pretty  fair  de 
scription  of  what  took  place  during  that  protracted  struggle. 
Until  ten  o'clock  he  stood  firm  and  unyielding,  bidding  the 
mob  defiance,  and  occasionally  getting  in  a  word  or  two  upon 
the  general  subject.  It  was  the  penalty  for  his  speech  in  Phil 
adelphia.  It  was  the  penalty  for  having  made  the  first  assault 
upon  Know-nothingism.  It  was  the  penalty  for  having  dared 
to  assail  an  order  including  within  its  members  a  vast  major 
ity  of  the  allied  opposition  of  the  Western  States.  We  have 
conversed  since  then  with  men  who  were  present  at  that  mob ; 
with  men  who  went  there  as  members  of  the  order,  pledged 
to  stand  by  and  protect  each  other ;  with  men  who  were  arm 
ed  to  the  teeth  in  anticipation  of  a  scene  of  bloody  violence, 
and  they  have  assured  us  that  nothing  prevented  bloodshed 
that  night  but  the  bold  and  defiant  manner  in  which  Douglas 
maintained  his  ground.  Had  he  exhibited  fear,  he  would  not 
have  commanded  respect;  had  he  been  suppliant,  he  would 
have  been  spurned;  had  he  been  craven,  and  retreated,  his 
party  would  in  all  probability  have  been  assaulted  with  mis 
siles,  leading  to  violence  in  return.  But,  standing  there  before 
that  vast  mob,  presenting  a  determined  front  and  unyielding 
purpose,  he  extorted  an  involuntary  admiration  from  those  of 
his  enemies  who  had  the  courage  to  engage  in  a  personal  en 
counter  ;  and  that  admiration,  while  it  could  not  overcome  the 
purpose  of  preventing  his  being  heard,  protected  him  from 
personal  violence. 

The  motive,  the  great  ruling  reason  for  refusing  him  the 
privilege  of  being  heard,  was  that,  as  he  had  in  1850  carried 
the  judgment  of  the  people  captive  into  an  endorsement  of  the 

M2 


274  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

Fugitive  Slave  Law,  so,  if  allowed  to  speak  in  1854,  he  would 
at  least  rally  all  Democrats  to  his  support  by  his  defense  of  the 
Nebraska  Bill.  The  combined  fanatics  of  Chicago  feared  the 
power  and  effect  of  his  argument  in  the  presence  and  hearing 
of  the  people.  They  therefore  resolved  that  he  should  not  be 
heard. 

So  far  as  this  occasion  was  concerned  the  object  was  success 
fully  attained,  and  if  there  were  any  doubts  as  to  the  fact  that 
the  course  agreed  upon  had  been  previously  concerted,  the  ex 
perience  of  the  following  few  weeks  served  to  remove  all  ques 
tion  on  that  subject. 

Mr.  Douglas  announced  his  intention  to  speak  at  several 
points  in  the  state,  there  being  an  election  for  Congressmen 
and  state  treasurer  then  pending.  Every  where  throughout 
the  northern  part  of  the  state  he  was  greeted  upon  his  arrival 
by  every  possible  indignity  that  could  be  offered,  short  of  per 
sonal  violence.  Burning  effigies,  effigies  suspended  by  ropes, 
banners  with  all  the  vulgar  mottoes  and  inscriptions  that  pas 
sion  and  prejudice  could  suggest,  were  displayed  at  various 
points.  Whenever  he  attempted  to  speak,  the  noisy  demon 
strations  which  had  proved  so  successful  in  Chicago  were  at 
tempted,  but  in  no  place  did  they  succeed  in  preventing  his  be 
ing  heard.  At  Galena,  Freeport,  Waukegan,  "Woodstock,  and 
other  points  in  the  very  heart  of  the  Abolition  and  Know-noth 
ing  portion  of  the  state,  he  made  strong,  clear,  and  brilliant  ad 
dresses  in  defense  of  the  great  measure.  He  justified  the  re 
peal  of  the  Missouri  restriction  upon  the  same  ground  that  he 
had  justified  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850 — that  it  was 
neither  a  Pro-slavery  nor  an  Anti-slavery  measure — that  it  was 
a  surrender  and  a  final  abandonment  by  Congress  and  the  fed 
eral  government  of  any  authority  or  claim  of  authority  over 
the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Territories ;  and  that  it  recognized 
in  the  people  of  the  Territories,  acting  through  their  Legisla 
tures,  and  through  their  state  conventions,  full,  exclusive,  and 
complete  power  to  prohibit  or  introduce,  to  exclude  or  protect, 
African  slavery  within  their  respective  Territorial  limits. 

In  1854  he  proclaimed  that  doctrine  in  the  face  of  an  excited 
Abolition  mob,  drawing  from  them  the  fiercest  denunciations. 
In  1858  he  proclaimed  the  same  doctrine  in  the  face  of  a  mass 
meeting  at  the  same  place,  and,  for  the  first  time  in  the  history 
of  the  Nebraska  Bill,  it  was  discovered  by  those  who  preferred 


KNOW-NOTHINGISM   AND   ANTI-NEBKASKAISM.  275 

the  election  of  Lincoln  that  Mr.  Douglas  was  preaching  a 
heresy ! 

It  was  not  until  late  in  the  fall,  and  not  until  after  he  had 
become  a  candidate  for  Congress,  that  Mr.  Lyman  Trumbull 
raised  the  banner  of  Anti-Neb raskaism,  and  put  himself  in  open 
hostility  to  the  Democratic  party.  A  senatorial  election  was 
to  take  place  at  the  approaching  session,  General  Shields's  term 
expiring  March  4th,  1855. 

The  previous  Legislature  had  been  largely  Democratic,  and 
the  senators  holding  over,  if  they  continued  as  Democrats, 
would,  with  those  Democrats  certain  to  be  elected,  secure  a 
Democratic  senator.  The  elections  in  Indiana  had  gone  "  Fu 
sion"  by  forty  or  fifty  thousand  majority ;  in  Ohio  by  a  major 
ity  reaching  eighty  thousand ;  in  Michigan  and  Wisconsin  by 
majorities  equally  overwhelming. 

The  candidates  in  Illinois  for  state  treasurer  were,  James 
Miller,  Whig,  Abolition,  Know-nothing,  Anti-Nebraska,  Fu 
sion,  and  John  Moore,  Democrat.  In  November  the  election 
took  place,  resulting  in  the  election  to  Congress  of  Richard 
son,  Harris,  Allen,  and  Marshal,  Democrats,  and  Washburne, 
Woodworth,  Norton,  Knox,  and  Trumbull,  by  the  combination. 
The  Democrats  elected  their  candidate  for  state  treasurer. 

In  the  Legislature  the  state  of  parties  was  not  so  clearly  de 
fined.  In  the  House  of  Representatives,  composed  of  seventy- 
five  members,  T.  J.  Turner  (Fusion)  was  elected  speaker,  re 
ceiving  forty  votes.  In  the  Senate,  composed  of  twenty-five 
members,  the  Democrats  had  seventeen  members  who  had  been 
elected  as  Democrats.  Of  those  three,  N.  B.  Judd,  B.  C.  Cook, 
and  J.  M.  Palmer,  senators  holding  over,  had  got  "  tender-foot 
ed" — that  is,  were  Anti-Nebraska  Democrats,  whose  consciences 
would  not  allow  them  to  vote  for  General  Shields,  or  any  Ne 
braska  Democrat,  and  whose  notions  of  political  morality  re 
volted  at  the  idea  of  voting  for  a  Whig. 

The  Legislature  met  in  joint  convention  on  the  8th  of  Feb 
ruary,  1855,  for  the  purpose  of  electing  a  senator  of  the  United 
States  to  succeed  General  Shields,  and  the  first  ballot  resulted 
—Shields  (Democrat)  41,  Ficklin  (Dem.)  1,  Denning  (Dem.) 
1,  Matteson  (Dem.)  1.  Total  (Dem.),  44.  Abraham  Lincoln 
45,  L.  Trumbull  5,  Ogden  (Fusion)  1,  Kellogg  (Fusion)  1, 
Koerner  (Fusion)  2,  Edwards  (Fusion)  1.  Total,  55 — one  va 
cancy.  On  the  seventh  vote  Lincoln  received  38,  Matteson 


276  LIFE    OP   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

44,  Trumbull  9,  Shields  1,  M'Clernand  1,  Koerner  1.  On  the 
ninth  Matteson  received  47,  Lincoln  15,  Trumbull  35  ;  and  on 
the  tenth  Trumbull  was  elected,  receiving  51  votes,  Matteson 
47,  "Williams  1 — one  Whig,  Mr.  Waters,  refusing  to  take  the 
apostate  Democrat  at  the  dictation  of  the  men  who  had  sacri 
ficed  Lincoln. 

Resolutions  upon  the  subject  of  slavery  were  introduced 
into  both  branches  of  the  Legislature  at  that  session,  though 
no  series  received  the  concurrent  approval  of  both  branches. 
Trumbull  having  been  elected  to  the  Senate,  his  district  chose 
the  Hon.  Robert  Smith  (Dem.)  to  fill  the  vacancy. 

After  the  election,  Mr.  Douglas  was  invited  by  his  political 
friends  in  Chicago  to  partake  of  a  public  dinner,  and  he  accepted 
the  invitation.  The  9th  of  November  was  selected  for  the  time, 
and  on  that  evening  some  two  hundred  gentlemen  sat  down 
to  a  dinner  at  the  Tremont  House.  In  response  to  a  compli 
mentary  sentiment,  Mr.  Douglas  addressed  the  company  in  a 
very  graceful,  eloquent,  and  finished  speech.  It  is  part  of  the 
history  of  his  life,  was  a  noble  vindication  of  his  conduct,  and 
was  substantially  the  address  which  he  would  have  made  to 
the  people  of  Chicago  in  September,  had  he  not  been  prevented 
by  the  mob.  Want  of  space  prevents  its  insertion  here.  It 
was  printed  in  pamphlet  form,  and,  though  it  claimed  for  the 
people  of  the  Territories  full  legislative  control  over  the  subject 
of  slavery  within  their  Territorial  limits — a  control  limited  only 
by  the  Constitution — no  word  of  dissent  was  heard  from  any 
Democratic  quarter  as  to  the  doctrines  therein  asserted. 

A  few  days  after  this  festive  occasion  Mr.  Douglas  left 
Chicago  on  a  visit  to  Louisiana,  and  subsequently,  when  at 
Washington  City,  was  invited  to  address  a  public  meeting  at 
Richmond,  Virginia.  At  the  South  there  was  no  opposition 
to  the  Nebraska  Bill,  but  the  great  majority  of  the  old  oppo 
nents  of  the  Democracy  had  united  under  the  new  and  myste 
rious  command  of  the  Know-nothing  order.  Mr.  Douglas  ad 
dressed  a  very  large  meeting  at  the  "African  Church,"  in  Rich 
mond,  in  defense  of  Democratic  principles  and  in  reprobation 
of  the  intolerant  creed  of  the  Know-nothings.  Of  this  speech, 
which  was  remarkable  for  its  general  ability,  one  passage,  in 
wrhich  he  addressed  a  most  impressive  warning  against  Ameri 
can  citizens  rashly  and  inconsiderately  binding  themselves  in 
political  matters  by  solemn  oaths,  attracted  universal  attention 


THE   FEDERAL   JUDICIARY.  277 

by  its  great  applicability.  The  illustration  employed,  and  the 
application  made  of  it,  has  not  been  surpassed  by  any  thing 
ever  said  upon  the  subject.  He  cited  Herod's  rash  oath  under 
which  he  bound  himself  to  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist.  Mr. 
Douglas  applied  this  with  great  eifect  to  the  hasty,  inconsid 
erate,  yet  solemn  and  sweeping  obligations  assumed  by  the 
members  of  the  Know-nothing  order. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE   FEDERAL   JUDICIARY. 

In  January,  1855,  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  Senate, 
having  had  for  some  years  the  subject  of  affording  to  the  mem 
bers  of  the  Supreme  Court  such  relief  as  would  enable  them 
to  perform  fully  their  high  duty  as  the  court  of  last  resort  in 
the  Union,  reported  a  bill  having  in  view  that  end.  The  bill 
reported  by  that  committee  discharged  the  justices  of  the  Su 
preme  Court  from  all  circuit  duty,  allowing  them,  however, 
the  same  jurisdiction  and  powers  now  vested  in  them  by  law 
within  any  of  the  circuits  in  which  they  may  reside,  in  allow 
ing  writs  of  habeas  corpus  and  of  error,  granting  injunctions, 
and  generally  all  such  powers  as  may  be  exercised  under  ex 
isting  law  at  chambers  and  out  of  term.  Instead  of  one  term, 
there  were  to  be  two  terms  of  the  Supreme  Court  annually. 
The  bill  continued  the  existing  judicial  districts,  but  provided 
for  their  arrangement  into  eleven  circuits — viz.:  1.  Maine, 
New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  and  Rhode  Island ;  2.  New 
York,  Connecticut,  and  Vermont;  3.  Pennsylvania  and  New 
Jersey;  4.  Delaware,  Maryland,  and  Virginia;  5.  North  and 
South  Carolina,  Georgia,  and  Florida ;  6.  Alabama,  Mississip 
pi,  and  Louisiana ;  7.  Arkansas  and  Texas ;  8.  Tennessee,  Ken 
tucky,  and  Missouri ;  9.  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Michigan ;  10.  Illi 
nois,  Wisconsin,  and  Iowa ;  11.  California.  The  bill  provided 
for  the  appointment  of  eleven  circuit  judges,  one  for  each  of 
these  circuits,  at  a  salary  of  $4000  per  annum  each ;  the  cir 
cuit  judges  to  perform  the  circuit  duties  now  performed  by  the 
justices  of  the  Supreme  Court. 

Mr.  Douglas,  who  had  given  to  the  subject  considerable  at 
tention,  proposed,  on  the  5th  of  January,  when  the  bill  came 
up,  a  substitute,  involving  a  new  plan,  or  adapting  the  exist- 


278  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

ing  system  to  the  present  exigencies  and  wants  of  the  country. 
He  opposed  most  strenuously  the  separation  of  the  Supreme 
Court  judges  from  the  people — from  intercourse  with  the  bar 
and  courts  throughout  the  Union.  His  plan  continued  the  ex 
isting  District  Courts,  and  conferred  on  them  all  the  powers 
and  jurisdiction  now  possessed  by  the  Circuit  Courts.  He  then 
proposed  to  establish  nine  judicial  circuits,  as  follows:  1.  The 
six  New  England  States;  2.  New  York,  New  Jersey,  and 
Pennsylvania;  3.  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  North 
Carolina ;  4.  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  and  Florida ; 
5.  Mississippi,  Louisiana,  Arkansas,  and  Texas ;  6.  Tennessee, 
Kentucky,  Ohio,  and  Indiana ;  7.  Illinois,  Michigan,  "Wiscon 
sin,  Iowa,  and  Minnesota ;  8.  Missouri,  New  Mexico,  Kansas, 
and  Nebraska ;  9.  California,  Oregon,  Washington,  and  Utah. 
The  district  judges  within  those  districts  to  assemble  once  in 
each  year,  with  one  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  preside, 
and  to  hear  all  appeals  from  the  several  District  Courts  within 
that  circuit.  The  several  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  at 
tend  these  circuits  once  in  each  year,  and  to  alternate,  so  as 
that  each  judge  in  turn  should  attend  all  the  circuits.  In  the 
debate  on  this  question,  Mr.  Douglas  explained,  in  his  peculiar 
ly  forcible  manner,  the  practical  workings  of  this  plan  proposed 
by  him.  He  said : 

I  have  been  induced,  Mr.  President,  to  offer  this  substitute  from  a  convic 
tion  that  the  plan  proposed  by  the  Judiciary  Committee  will  not  answer  the 
purposes  which  they  have  in  view,  and  will  not  remedy  the  evils  which  they 
desire  to  correct.  They  propose  to  make  a  separate  Supreme  Court,  with  no 
other  duties  than  those  which  are  imposed  upon  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  sitting  at  Washington  alone.  Here  I  differ  in  toto  with  the 
committee.  I  think  the  Supreme  Court  ought  to  have  other  jurisdiction.  I 
think  it  is  for  the  good  of  the  country,  and  for  the  good  of  that  court,  that 
its  judges  should  be  required  to  go  into  the  country,  hold  courts  in  different 
localities,  and  mingle  with  the  local  judges  and  with  the  bar.  I  think  that 
if  the  judges  of  that  court  be  released  from  all  duties  outside  the  city  of 
Washington,  and  stay  here  the  whole  year  round,  they  will  become,  as  a 
senator  remarked  to  me  a  moment  ago,  mere  paper  judges.  I  think  they 
will  lose  that  weight  of  authority  in  the  country  which  they  ought  to  have 
just  in  proportion  as  they  lose  their  knowledge  of  the  local  legislation,  and 
of  the  practice  and  proceedings  of  the  courts  below.  I  believe,  therefore, 
that  the  theory  of  the  original  plan  on  which  our  judiciary  system  was  form 
ed  was  right.  In  consequence  of  the  increase  of  the  judicial  business  of  the 
country,  some  modification  of  that  plan  has  become  necessary  in  order  to 
preserve  the  same  principle,  and  render  it  applicable  to  our  present  condition. 
The  plan  which  I  propose  in  this  substitute  is  simply  this :  that  there  shall 
be  no  new  judges  appointed,  but  the  duties  now  performed  by  the  District 
and  Circuit  Courts  of  the  United  States  in  each  state  shall  hereafter  be  per 
formed  by  the  district  judge  in  that  state.  According  to  it,  the  district  judge 


THE   FEDERAL   JUDICIAEY.  279 

will  hold  the  District  and  the  Circuit  Courts  at  the  same  time.  Both  will  be 
open  at  the  same  time ;  the  record  of  each  will  be  before  him,  in  the  same 
manner  as  in  a  court  of  law  with  chancery  jurisdiction.  As  both  courts  are 
open  at  the  same  time,  the  judge  may  take  up  a  case  on  the  law  docket  or 
the  chancery  docket,  as  may  be  convenient ;  so,  according  to  my  plan,  the 
district  judge  could  take  up  a  case  on  the  docket  of  either  the  District  or  the 
Circuit  Court,  both  courts  being  held  by  the  same  judge.  Then,  having  re 
leased  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  from  the  necessity  of  going  into  ev 
ery  district  in  each  state — and  where  there  are  three  districts  in  a  state,  as  in 
Tennessee  and  other  states,  that  must  be  a  great  labor — the  question  is,  how 
much  of  this  local  duty  can  we  devolve  upon  them  without  depriving  them 
of  the  opportunity  of  performing  all  their  duties  at  the  seat  of  government  ? 
It  occurred  to  me  that  this  point  could  be  settled  in  the  manner  which  I  have 
proposed  in  my  amendment ;  that  is,  to  divide  the  whole  United  States  into 
nine  judicial  circuits,  and  provide  that  there  shall  be  held,  once  a  year,  in 
each  of  those  circuits,  a  Court  of  Appeals,  to  be  composed  of  the  district  judge 
of  each  district  within  the  circuit,  together  with  one  of  the  judges  of  the  Su 
preme  Court  of  the  United  States,  who  should  preside.  By  way  of  illustra 
tion,  suppose  the  New  England  States  should  be  made  one  of  the  circuits ; 
there  are,  in  New  England,  six  United  States  District  Courts,  and  the  Court 
of  Appeals  would  therefore  be  composed  of  these  six  district  judges,  with  one 
judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  presiding,  which  would 
make  a  court  of  seven  judges.  I  provide  for  appeals  to  be  taken  directly  from 
the  District  Court  to  this  Court  of  Appeals,  and  then  from  the  Court  of  Ap 
peals  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  with  certain  restrictions. 
This  illustration  would  apply  to  each  of  the  other  nine  districts,  comprehend 
ing  all  the  states  and  all  the  Territories  of  the  Union.  This  system  would, 
it  seems  to  me,  have  very  great  advantages,  and  would  remedy  several  evils 
which  we  have  known  to  grow  up  under  our  present  system.  You  now  find 
that  in  one  district  the  rules  of  practice  are  one  way,  and  in  another  district 
entirely  different.  One  district  judge  decides  a  controverted  principle  in  one 
way,  and  another  in  another  way.  If  all  the  district  judges  in  a  circuit  could 
come  together  once  a  year  to  review  their  own  decisions,  it  would  tend  to 
bring  about  uniformity  of  thought  and  uniformity  of  practice  within  those 
districts.  To  secure  this  object,  my  substitute  provides  that  the  Court  of  Ap 
peals  in  each  circuit  shall  prescribe  the  rules  of  practice  for  the  District 
Courts  within  the  circuit.  Yen  thus  infuse  uniformity  into  all  the  District 
Courts  within  the  same  circuit,  acting  under  the  same  rules,  and  the  conse 
quence  would  be  that  very  few  appeals  would  be  taken  from  the  Court  of  Ap 
peals  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  I  propose  also  to  allow  an 
appeal  from  the  District  Court  to  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  every  case  in  which 
it  is  now  allowed  by  law  from  the  District  to  the  Circuit  Courts  ;  and  to  allow 
appeals  from  the  Court  of  Appeals  to  the  Supreme  Court,  but  to  fix  a  higher 
sum  than  is  now  required  to  be  the  amount  in  controversy  to  entitle  the  par 
ties  to  an  appeal  from  a  Circuit  Court  to  the  Supreme  Court,  so  that  small 
cases  may  stop  at  the  Courts  of  Appeal,  and  none  but  cases  involving  large 
amounts  and  important  principles  be  carried  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States.  Then,  sir,  with  a  view  of  remedying  other  evils  which  may 
now  exist,  I  have  introduced  another  principle,  derived  from  the  judicial  sys 
tem  of  some  of  the  states  of  the  Union.  It  is  what  is  known  as  the  rotary 
principle ;  that  is  to  say,  inasmuch  as  one  of  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court 
is  to  preside  in  each  of  the  Courts  of  Appeals  once  a  year  in  each  circuit 
throughout  the  United  States,  I  require  them  to  rotate  ;  so  that  if  the  chief 
justice  presides  in  district  No.  1  this  year,  he  may  next  year  go  to  district 
No.  2,  and  next  to  district  No.  3,  and  so  on  until  he  come  to  district  No. 
9,  at  San  Francisco.  Then,  the  succeeding  year,  the  next  judge  highest  in 


280  LIFE    OP   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

commission  begins  at  district  No.  1,  goes  to  the  second,  and  the  third,  and 
all  the  other  districts.  The  consequence  of  this  would  be  that  a  judge  of 
the  Supreme  Court  would  not  preside  in  the  same  circuit  over  a  Court  of  Ap 
peals  more  than  once  in  nine  years.  In  that  way  the  foundation  of  com 
plaints,  which  sometimes  are  gotten  up — probably  unjustly,  but  yet  none  the 
less  mischievous  for  being  unjust — that  there  is  a  coterie  around  the  judge 
when  he  goes  every  year  to  the  same  circuit,  would  be  destroyed.  Again,  if 
a  judge  goes  to  the  New  England  circuit  one  year,  to  the  Middle  States  the 
next  year,  then  through  the  Southern  States,  then  to  the  Western  States,  and 
finally  to  California,  he  becomes  more  familiar  with  the  local  judicial  system 
of  the  whole  Union ;  and  inasmuch  as  the  Supreme  Court  is  the  final  Court 
of  Appeals  from  all  decisions  of  the  lower  courts  throughout  the  land,  its 
judges  ought  to  be  familiar,  so  far  as  it  is  possible  for  them  to  become  famil 
iar,  with  the  modes  of  proceeding  in  the  various  sections  of  the  Union,  with 
the  local  legislation,  and  the  local  laws  of  all  parts  of  the  country.  Now,  sir, 
without  meaning  any  disrespect  to  any  one,  but  for  the  purpose  of  illustrating 
the  practical  operation  of  the  principle,  I  trust  I  may  be  permitted  to  say  that 
I  do  not  think  it  would  be  the  slightest  injury  to  Judge  Curtis,  of  Boston,  after 
having  practiced  law  all  his  life  in  New  England,  to  hold  court  for  one  term 
in  Charleston,  South  Carolina,  and  then  in  New  Orleans,  and  again  in  Chica 
go,  and  then  in  San  Francisco.  I  think  a  system  which  required  that  would 
liberalize  the  mind,  elevate  the  train  of  thought,  and  expand  the  range  of 
knowledge  of  any  judge,  no  matter  how  exalted  he  might  be.  On  the  other 
hand,  I  do  not  think  it  would  do  the  slightest  harm  to  Judge  Campbell,  of 
Mobile,  to  send  him  to  Boston  to  hold  court,  and  let  him  mingle  with  the 
people  of  New  England,  and  the  New  England  bar  and  judiciary,  and  be 
come  acquainted  with  the  New  England  character  and  New  England  juris 
prudence.  Let  him  go  the  round  until  he  gets  back,  at  the  end  of  nine  years, 
to  his  own  circuit  where  he  resides,  and  I  think  he  would  be  liberalized,  and 
improved,  and  benefited  by  the  trip.  The  same  remark  would  apply  to  each 
one  of  the  judges.  They  would  then  have  a  degree  of  knowledge  of  the  sys 
tems  in  each  state,  and  of  the  local  jurisprudence  of  each  part  of  the  coun 
try,  which  would  be  very  valuable  to  them.  They  would  thus  become  ac 
quainted  with  the  bar  all  over  the  Union,  and  with  the  sentiments  and  feel 
ings  of  the  bar,  operating  upon  the  rules  of  practice  and  of  the  rules  of  court, 
and  would  acquire  a  knowledge  which  never  could  be  acquired  in  any  other 
way.  Entertaining  these  opinions,  I  believe  that  the  best  system  we  could 
adopt  would  be  to  take  the  present  system  as  it  is,  adding  no  new  judges,  or 
at  least  not  more  than  one,  if  an  additional  judge  should  be  necessary,  and  I 
doubt  whether  one  is ;  leave  the  district  judges  to  perform  their  own  duties 
in  the  District  and  Circuit  Courts  of  the  United  States ;  constitute  the  Court 
of  Appeals  which  I  have  proposed,  and  allow  an  appeal  from  them  to  the  Su 
preme  Court  of  the  United  States.  Thus  the  whole  system  is  harmonious. 
This  plan  would  never  render  it  necessary,  in  any  expansion  of  the  country, 
no  matter  how  great,  to  increase  the  number  of  judges  on  the  bench  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States ;  but  when  we  bring  other  states  into  the 
Union,  or  organize  other  Territories,  all  we  shall  have  to  do  will  be  to  attach 
one  of  those  new  states  or  Territories  to  one  of  the  existing  nine  judicial  cir 
cuits.  Then  this  system  is  complete.  It  will  adapt  itself  to  any  expansion 
of  our  country,  to  any  increase  of  business  in  all  time  to  come,  and  I  believe 
it  will  be  harmonious  in  its  action. 

I  have  not  been  able  to  look  into  my  proposition  since  I  drew  it  up,  and 
presented  it  informally  at  the  last  session.  I  did  not  expect  it  to  come  up 
to-day,  and  therefore  can  not  go  fully  into  all  its  details ;  but  there  is  a  special 
provision  in  it  which  I  think  I  ought  to  notice.  In  order  to  give  ample  com 
pensation  to  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  for  the  extra  labor  which  would 


THE   FEDERAL   JUDICIARY.  281 

be  imposed  on  them  by  my  proposition,  in  addition  to  their  duties  on  the 
Supreme  bench,  I  have  proposed  to  allow  them  the  per  diem  and  mileage  of 
members  of  Congress  while  they  are  absent  as  presiding  judges  in  the  Courts 
of  Appeals.  If  a  judge  should  go  only  from  here  to  Boston  to  hold  court, 
the  mileage  would  be  but  small.  If  he  should  go  to  New  Orleans,  it  would 
be  a  very  respectable  sum ;  and  if  he  should  go  to  San  Francisco,  it  would 
be  quite  a  little  fortune.  I  think  such  a  provision  would  really  improve  the 
health  of  many  of  the  judges,  so  that  they  could  take  a  trip  to  San  Francisco 
without  complaining  that  they  would  suffer  very  much  by  it,  though  they 
might  find  it  very  unhealthy  if  some  such  provision  were  not  made.  I  also 
believe,  as  a  matter  of  justice,  that  they  should  receive  mileage  in  propor 
tion  to  their  travel.  I  do  not  say  whether  or  not  the  present  salary  is  suffi 
cient.  If  it  is  not,  increase  it.  But  I  say,  in  addition  to  whatever  salary 
you  award  to  them  as  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  you  should  allow  them 
a  per  diem  while  holding  the  appellate  courts,  and  the  mileage  of  members 
of  Congress  while  traveling  over  the  country  to  reach  the  sittings  of  those 
courts.  I  propose  to  apply  the  same  principle  to  the  district  judges  when 
they  leave  their  respective  districts,  and  go  to  a  central  point  in  the  circuit, 
to  sit  in  the  Court  of  Appeals.  I  have  thus  stated  briefly  the  chief  provisions 
of  the  substitute  which  I  have  offered.  It  has  occurred  to  me  that  by  this 
proposition  we  could  avoid  many  of  the  evils  which  we  are  likely  to  encoun 
ter  by  the  adoption  of  the  system  reported  by  the  Committee  on  the  Judi 
ciary.  I  have  great  reluctance  at  any  time  to  make  a  radical  and  sudden 
change  in  the  judiciary  of  the  country.  If  there  is  any  department  of  this 
government  for  which  I  have  a  higher  reverence  than  any  other — if  there  is 
any  department  in  the  purity  and  stability  of  which  I  place  higher  hopes  than 
any  other,  it  is  the  judiciary.  I  would  not  wish  to  make  any  such  sudden 
and  radical  change  in  that  system  as  would  infuse  into  it  too  many  new  men 
at  one  time.  I  would  allow  that  infusion  of  new  blood  and  new  life  to  come 
into  it  by  the  course  of  nature,  simply  by  filling  vacancies  when  they  may  oc 
cur  from  time  to  time.  Sir,  I  think  it  is  unwise  to  make  a  change  by  which 
all  the  Circuit  Courts  of  the  Union  shall  at  once  be  held  by  new  men,  perhaps 
politicians,  perhaps  lawyers  who  have  never  been  upon  the  bench.  It  is  a 
thing  which  ought  to  be  done  gradually,  so  that  there  shall  always  be  a  ma 
jority  of  experienced  judges  upon  each  of  the  benches  of  the  country.  These 
views,  sir,  have  operated  on  my  mind.  I  have  doubted  whether  the  system 
proposed  by  the  Judiciary  Committee  could  be  adopted,  and  if  adopted,  I 
have  had  still  more  serious  doubts  whether  it  would  remedy  the  evils  intend 
ed  to  be  remedied  by  those  who  have  brought  it  forward.  But,  sir,  not  being 
a  member  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  I  have  felt  great  reluctance  in  inter 
posing  my  voice  on  this  question.  My  duties  have  been  such  that  I  have  not 
been  able  to  give  it  that  consideration  which  the  importance  of  a  subject  of  this 


these  suggestions,  in  order  that  the  Senate  may  pass  their  judgment  upon 
them,  and  make  such  disposition  of  the  subject  as  they  shall  think  proper. 

Mr.  PEATT  having  asked  some  explanation : 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  am  aware  that  I  was,  perhaps,  somewhat  confused  in  the 
brief  explanation  which  I  gave  this  morning,  as  the  matter  came  up  unex 
pectedly,  and  therefore  omitted  many  points  which  ought  to  have  been  fully 
explained.  I  have  turned  my  attention,  however,  to  the  points  to  which  the 
senator  from  Maryland  has  adverted.  It  occurred  to  me  that  the  duties  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  would  be  materially  lessened  by  the 
plan  which  I  have  proposed  in  this  respect ;  I  have  thought  that  by  having  a 


282  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

Court  of  Appeals,  composed  of  six  or  seven  judges  in  the  respective  circuits, 
one  of  the  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  presiding,  there  would  be  a  much 
less  number  of  appeals  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  than 
there  is  under  the  present  system.  Under  the  existing  system,  an  appeal 
from  a  District  Court  to  a  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  is  a  mere  mock 
ery.  I  do  not  speak  offensively ;  but  I  say,  in  its  practical  effect  it  is  a  mock 
ery,  and  for  this  reason :  a  case  is  first  tried  before  the  district  judge,  and 
then  an  appeal  is  taken  to  the  Circuit  Court.  The  Circuit  Court  is  composed 
of  that  same  district  judge  and  one  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States.  If,  when  the  case  comes  up  for  hearing  before  the  Circuit  Court,  the 
district  judge  is  of  the  same  opinion  that  he  was  before,  as  he  probably  would 
be,  and  the  circuit  judge  differs  from  him,  there  would  then  be  no  decision, 
and  the  case  would  be  certified  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
to  decide  between  them.  If,  on  the  contrary,  the  circuit  judge  should  agree 
with  the  judge  below,  then  there  would  be  a  decision,  but  the  appeal  would 
have  been  useless,  for  it  merely  led  to  the  affirmation  of  the  opinion  below. 
The  consequence  is,  that  whenever  there  is  a  difference  of  opinion  between 
the  circuit  judge  and  the  district  judge,  the  case  is  certified  to  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  thus  you  multiply  the  causes  on  the  docket  of  the  Supreme  Court 
without  having  accomplished  any  benefit  by  the  appeal  through  the  inter 
mediate  court.  But,  according  to  my  plan,  instead  of  appealing  from  the 
judge  below  to  himself  and  one  other,  you  appeal  to  himself  and  probably 
six  others,  and  one  of  those  six  a  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States.  If  they  should  reverse  a  decision  unanimously,  the  chances  are  that 
the  matter  would  stop  there.  If  they  should  be  nearly  equally  divided  on  a 
question  involving  a  new  or  intricate  principle  of  law,  or  a  vast  amount  of 
property,  the  case  would  probably  be  appealed.  I  think,  then,  that  in  the 
practical  operation  of  this  system,  there  would  be  very  few  appeals  to  the  Su 
preme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  comparison  to  the  number  there  is  now. 
Again,  sir,  the  system  I  have  submitted  will  diminish  the  duties  of  the  judges 
of  the  Supreme  Court  in  another  respect.  Judge  M'Lean,  for  example,  is 
the  judge  assigned  to  the  Northwestern  Circuit,  in  which  I  reside.  He  is  ex 
pected  to  attend  to  his  duties  in  the  Supreme  Court  here  at  Washington,  and 
also  to  preside  twice  a  year  in  the  Circuit  Court  in  Ohio ;  twice  in  Indiana ; 
four  times  in  Illinois,  there  being  two  districts  there,  and  twice  in  Michigan. 
There  are,  then,  ten  terms  which  he  is  expected  to  hold  in  the  courts  below 
in  one  year,  besides  attending  to  his  duties  in  the  Supreme  Court.  I  propose, 
instead  of  his  holding  ten  terms  of  the  Circuit  Courts  in  each  year,  he  shall 
attend  but  one  term  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  a  particular  circuit.  It  strikes 
me  that  this  would  materially  diminish  his  duties.  If  the  term  of  the  Court 
of  Appeals  should  last  for  three  months — and  certainly  it  could  hardly  be  ex 
pected  to  take  up  that  much  time — he  would  still  have  nine  months  for  at 
tendance  on  the  Supreme  Court  here.  My  substitute  requires  the  Court  of 
Appeals  to  be  held  in  the  nine  circuits  on  the  same  day — say  the  first  Monday 
in  June  or  the  first  Monday  in  May.  That  being  the  case,  the  judges  of 
the  Supreme  Court  would  arrange  their  terms  so  as  to  allow  them  to  disperse 
to  their  respective  circuits  at  the  same  time,  finish  their  circuits,  and  get  back 
here  at  the  same  time.  I  take  it  for  granted,  therefore,  that,  instead  of  being 
limited,  as  they  now  are,  to  two  or  three  months  every  year  for  their  duties 
here,  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  under  my  plan,  would  have  at  least 
nine  months  to  be  at  Washington,  after  performing  all  their  duties  in  the 
different  circuits.  In  this  way,  by  giving  them  eight,  or  nine,  or  ten  months 
to  be  here,  instead  of  three  or  four  months,  for  their  duties  in  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  by  diminishing  the  amount  of  their  circuit  labors  in  the  mode  I 
have  mentioned,  they  would  be  enabled  to  perform  all  their  duties,  and  have 
probably  one  half  the  year  to  themselves. 


THE   FEDERAL   JUDICIARY.  283 

The  bill  was  debated  several  days ;  but  there  was  such  a  di 
versity  of  opinion  in  the  Senate  as  to  the  principle  of  the  orig 
inal  bill — to  exempt  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  from 
circuit  duty — that  the  friends  of  the  bill  abandoned  it.  Before 
it  was  disposed  of,  however,  a  vote  was  taken  on  Mr.  Douglas's 
amendment,  and  it  was  rejected — yeas  19,  nays  26.  Those 
voting  for  it  were  Atchison,  Benjamin,  Bright,  Cass,  Clay, 
Clayton,  Dodge  of  Wisconsin,  Dodge  of  Iowa,  Douglas,  Fes- 
senden,  Foot,  Geyer,  Gwin,  Jones  of  Iowa,  Sebastian,  Shields, 
Stuart,  Thomson  of  New  Jersey,  and  Wade.  The  subject  has 
never  been  acted  upon  definitely  since  then. 

Perhaps  no  public  man  in  the  Union  has  labored  more  earn 
estly  and  indefatigably  in  the  Senate,  in  his  written  papers,  and 
in  his  addresses  before  the  people,  than  Mr.  Douglas,  to  sustain 
and  defend  the  supreme  judicial  authority  of  the  federal  ju 
diciary.  He  has  had  to  meet  and  encounter  the  misrepresenta 
tions  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  and  has  had  to  labor  hard, 
yet  willingly  and  successfully,  to  defend  that  decision  to  its 
fullest  extent  before  the  people  of  the  Northwest.  One  of  the 
charges  made  against  him  in  1858  was  that  he  had  conspired 
with  Judge  Taney  in  having  that  decision  made.  While  he  de 
fended  the  venerable  chief  justice  from  the  accusation  of  con 
spiracy,  Mr.  Douglas  endorsed  and  approved  that  decision  with 
out  equivocation  or  reservation.  Throughout  all  his  speeches 
will  be  found  a  broad  emphatic  approval  of  that  decision,  and 
of  a  purpose  on  all  occasions  to  submit  to  and  abide  by  what 
ever  decision  that  court  may  make  upon  questions  of  construc 
tion  of  the  Constitution. 

In  a  speech  delivered  at  Springfield  June  12,  1857,  Mr. 
Douglas  thus  referred  to  the  Supreme  Court  and  the  Dred 
Scott  decision : 

"  That  we  are  steadily  and  rapidly  approaching  that  result  I  can  not  doubt, 
for  the  slavery  issue  has  already  dwindled  down  into  the  narrow  limits  cov 
ered  by  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  the  Dred 
Scott  case.  The  moment  that  decision  was  pronounced,  and  before  the  opin 
ions  of  the  court  could  be  published  and  read  by  the  people,  the  newspaper 
press,  in  the  interest  of  a  powerful  political  party  in  this  country,  began  to 
pour  forth  torrents  of  abuse  and  misrepresentations  not  only  upon  the  de 
cision,  but  upon  the  character  and  motives  of  the  venerable  chief  justice  and 
his  illustrious  associates  on  the  bench.  The  character  of  Chief  Justice  Taney, 
and  his  associate  judges  who  concurred  with  him,  require  no  eulogy — no  vin 
dication  from  me.  They  are  endeared  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  by 
their  eminent  public  services — venerated  for  their  great  learning,  wisdom, 
and  experience — and  beloved  for  the  spotless  purity  of  their  characters  and 


284  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

their  exemplary  lives.  The  poisonous  shafts  of  partisan  malice  will  fall 
harmless  at  their  feet,  while  their  judicial  decisions  will  stand  in  all  future 
time,  a  proud  monument  to  their  greatness,  the  admiration  of  the  good  and 
wise,  and  a  rebuke  to  the  partisans  of  faction  and  lawless  violence.  If,  un 
fortunately,  any  considerable  portion  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  shall 
so  far  forget  their  obligations  to  society  as  to  allow  partisan  leaders  to  array 
them  in  violent  resistance  to  the  final  decision  of  the  highest  judicial  tribunal 
on  earth,  it  will  become  the  duty  of  all  the  friends  of  order  and  constitutional 
government,  without  reference  to  past  political  differences,  to  organize  them 
selves  and  marshal  their  forces  under  the  glorious  banner  of  the  Union,  in 
vindication  of  the  Constitution  and  the  supremacy  of  the  laws  over  the  ad 
vocates  of  faction  and  the  champions  of  violence.  To  preserve  the  Constitu 
tion  inviolate,  and  vindicate  the  supremacy  of  the  laws,  is  the  first  and  highest 
duty  of  every  citizen  of  a  free  republic.  The  peculiar  merit  of  our  form  of 
government  over  all  others  consists  in  the  fact  that  the  law,  instead  of  the 
arbitrary  will  of  a  hereditary  prince,  prescribes,  defines,  and  protects  all  our 
rights.  In  this  country  the  law  is  the  will  of  the  people,  embodied  and  ex 
pressed  according  to  the  forms  of  the  Constitution.  The  courts  are  the  tri 
bunals  prescribed  by  the  Constitution,  and  created  by  the  authority  of  the 
people,  to  determine,  expound,  and  enforce  the  law.  Hence,  whoever  resists 
the  final  decision  of  the  highest  judicial  tribunal  aims  a  deadly  blow  at  our 
whole  republican  system  of  government — a  blow  which,  if  successful,  would 
place  all  our  rights  and  liberties  at  the  mercy  of  passion,  anarchy,  and  vi 
olence.  I  repeat,  therefore,  that  if  resistance  to  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States— in  a  matter,  like  the  points  decided  in  the  Dred 
Scott  case,  clearly  within  their  jurisdiction  as  defined  by  the  Constitution — 
shall  be  forced  upon  the  country  as  a  political  issue,  it  will  become  a  distinct 
and  naked  issue  between  the  friends  and  the  enemies  of  the  Constitution — 
the  friends  and  the  enemies  of  the  supremacy  of  the  laws." 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

KANSAS   AND   HER   GOVERNMENTS. 

UNDER  the  operation  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  the  gov 
ernments  provided  for  the  two  Territories  were  in  due  time 
erected.  That  established  in  Nebraska  was  put  in  operation, 
and  has  been  conducted  ever  since  with  as  little  trouble,  as 
little  excitement,  as  little  distraction  at  home  or  throughout 
the  Union  as  would  be  expected  from  the  organization  of  a 
new  county  in  Virginia  or  Illinois.  Not  so  with  Kansas. 
From  the  first  day  of  its  establishment  down  to  the  present 
Kansas  has  been  the  theatre  of  fearful  strife,  involving  blood 
shed  upon  her  plains,  the  formation  of  treasonable  operations 
there  and  in  other  places,  and  to  some  extent,  at  times,  the 
substitution  of  irresponsible  anarchy  for  legal  and  constitu 
tional  government. 

The  entire  history  of  Kansas  difficulties  formed  a  leading 


KANSAS   AND   HER   GOVERNMENTS.  285 

question  during  the  session  of  Congress  commencing  in  De 
cember,  1855,  and  Mr.  Douglas  took  an  active  and  leading 
part  in  the  eventful  chapter  of  Congressional  action  upon  her 
affairs.  His  reports  and  speeches  at  that  session  contain  of 
themselves  the  best  as  well  as  the  most  concise  written  nar 
rative  not  only  of  what  took  place  in  Congress,  but  of  what 
happened  in  the  unfortunate  Territory. 

The  House  of  Representatives  having  been  unable  to  elect  a 
speaker,  the  President  of  the  United  States,  without  waiting 
for  the  usual  notice  of  the  organization  of  the  houses,  and  their 
readiness  to  receive  any  communication  from  him,  on  the  31st 
of  December  sent  in  his  usual  message.  He  thus  referred  to 
affairs  in  Kansas : 

"In  the  Territory  of  Kansas  there  have  been  acts  prejudicial  to  good  order, 
but  as  yet  none  have  occurred  under  circumstances  to  justify  the  interposition 
of  the  federal  executive.  That  could  only  be  in  case  of  obstruction  to  federal 
law,  or  of  organized  resistance  to  Territorial  law,  assuming  the  character  of 
insurrection,  which,  if  it  should  occur,  it  would  be  my  duty  promptly  to  over 
come  and  suppress.  I  cherish  the  hope,  however,  that  the  occurrence  of  any 
such  untoward  event  will  be  prevented  by  the  sound  sense  of  the  people  of 
the  Territory,  who,  by  its  organic  law,  possessing  the  right  to  determine  their 
own  domestic  institutions,  are  entitled,  while  deporting  themselves  peacefully, 
to  the  free  exercise  of  that  right,  and  must  be  protected  in  the  enjoyment  of 
it,  without  interference  on  the  part  of  the  citizens  of  any  of  the  states." 

On  the  24th  of  January  President  Pierce  sent  a  special  mes 
sage  to  Congress  upon  Kansas  affairs.  He  thus  expressed  and 
denned  his  construction  of  the  purposes,  intents,  and  effect  of 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act.  He  said :  . 

"  The  act  to  organize  the  Territories  of  Nebraska  and  Kansas  was  a  man 
ifestation  of  the  legislative  opinion  of  Congress  on  two  great  points  of  con 
stitutional  construction :  one,  that  the  designation  of  the  boundaries  of  a  new 
Territory,  and  provision  for  its  political  organization,  and  administration  as 
a  Territory,  are  measures  which  of  right  fall  within  the  powers  of  the  general 
government ;  and  the  other,  that  the  inhabitants  of  any  such  Territory,  con 
sidered  as  an  inchoate  state,  are  entitled,  in  the  exercise  of  self-government, 
to  determine  for  themselves  what  shall  be  their  own  domestic  institutions, 
subject  only  to  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  duly  enacted  by  Congress  under 
it,  and  to  the  power  of  the  existing  states  to  decide,  according  to  the  pro 
visions  and  principles  of  the  Constitution,  at  what  time  the  Territory  shall  be 
received  as  a  state  into  the  Union.  Such  are  the  great  political  rights  which 
are  solemnly  declared  and  affirmed  by  that  act." 

The  President  called  attention  to  the  various  difficulties  that 
had  occurred  in  Kansas,  and  also  the  attempt  to  put  the  Tope- 
ka  state  government  in  operation  as  the  government  of  Kan 
sas — to  override  and  exclude  the  existing  Territorial  govern 
ment.  He  recommended  the  passage  of  a  law  authorizing  the 


286  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

people  of  Kansas,  whenever  they  might  desire  it,  and  were  suf 
ficiently  numerous  to  constitute  a  state,  to  elect  delegates  to  a 
convention  for  the  formation  of  a  state  government,  prepara 
tory  to  their  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  state.  The  mes 
sage  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Territories. 

Mr.  Douglas,  in  the  mean  time,  was  detained  at  Cleveland, 
where,  and  at  Terre  Haute,  he  had  been  suffering  intensely 
with  a  bronchial  affection.  So  protracted  was  his  illness  that 
he  was  not  able  to  proceed  to  Washington  until  February,  on 
the  llth  of  which  month  he  appeared  in  the  Senate. 

On  the  18th  a  large  number  of  documents,  called  for  by  a 
resolution  of  the  Senate,  were  received  and  referred  to  the 
Territorial  Committee. 

On  the  12th  of  March  Mr.  Douglas  made  his  elaborate  and 
celebrated  report  upon  Kansas  matters,  and  upon  the  powers 
of  Congress  over  the  Territories  as  political  communities.  The 
report,  and  the  speech  which  he  delivered  a  few  days  later,  are 
in  themselves  the  most  complete  and  concise  history  of  Kansas 
affairs  up  to  that  time.  The  report  was  ordered  to  be  printed, 
and  a  motion  to  print  extra  copies  was  referred  to  the  Com 
mittee  on  Printing,  it  being  stated  and  understood  that  the 
debate  should  take  place  on  the  bills  when  reported  during  the 
following  week. 

However,  when  the  Committee  on  Printing  made  their  re 
port  a  day  or  two  after,  Mr.  Trumbull  availed  himself  of  the 
occasion  to  deliver  a  speech  in  review  of  the  report.  Mr. 
Douglas  was  absent  at  the  time,  but,  hearing  that  his  colleague 
was  making  a  speech,  went  to  the  Senate,  and  at  its  conclusion 
a  sharp  personal  debate  took  place  respecting  this  proceeding 
by  Mr.  Trumbull.  Mr.  Douglas  likened  it  to  the  proceedings 
on  the  part  of  Messrs.  Chase  and  Sumner  in  1854,  when  a  de 
lay  was  asked  in  the  consideration  of  the  Nebraska  Bill,  during 
which  those  who  had  asked  the  delay  issued  an  address  mis 
representing  the  character  of  the  bill  and  the  motives  of  its 
authors. 

On  Monday,  March  17th,  Mr. Douglas  reported  "a  bill  to 
authorize  the  people  of  the  Territory  of  Kansas  to  form  a  Con 
stitution  and  state  government  preparatory  to  their  admission 
into  the  Union  when  they  have  the  requisite  population." 

On  the  20th  he  addressed  the  Senate  in  support  of  the  bill, 
and  upon  the  general  questions  embraced  in  the  report.  We 


KANSAS   AND   HER   GOVERNMENTS.  287 

select  from  the  report  some  extracts  referring  to  very  import 
ant  points,  particularly  that  portion  wherein  the  power  of  Con 
gress  to  establish  Territorial  governments  is  considered  as  a 
necessity  arising  in  the  exercise  of  the  power  to  admit  new 
states.  The  repOf t  says : 

Your  committee  deem  this  an  appropriate  occasion  to  state  briefly,  but  dis 
tinctly,  the  principles  upon  which  new  states  may  be  admitted  and  Territories 
organized  under  the  authority  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

The  Constitution  (section  3,  article  4)  provides  that  "new  states  may  be 
admitted  by  the  Congress  into  this  Union." 

Section  8,  article  1 :  "  Congress  shall  have  power  to  make  all  laws  which 
shall  be  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into  execution  the  foregoing  pow 
ers,  and  all  other  powers  vested  by  the  Constitution  in  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  or  in  any  department  or  office  thereof." 

10th  amendment :    "  The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the  v 
Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  states,  are  reserved  to  the  states  re 
spectively,  or  to  the  people." 

A  state  of  the  federal  Union  is  a  sovereign  power,  limited  only  by  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States. 

The  limitations  which  that  instrument  has  imposed  are  few,  specific,  and 
uniform — applicable  alike  to  all  the  states,  old  and  new.  There  is  no  au 
thority  for  putting  a  restriction  upon  the  sovereignty  of  a  new  state  which  the 
Constitution  has  not  placed  on  the  original  states.  Indeed,  if  such  a  restric 
tion  could  be  imposed  on  any  state,  it  would  instantly  cease  to  be  a  state 
within  the  meaning  of  the  federal  Constitution,  and,  in  consequence  of  the 
inequality,  would  assimilate  to  the  condition  of  a  province  or  dependency. 
Hence  equality  among  all  the  states  of  the  Union  is  a  fundamental  principle 
in  our  federative  system — a  principle  embodied  in  the  Constitution,  as  the 
basis  upon  which  the  American  Union  rests. 

African  slavery  existed  in  all  the  colonies,  under  the  sanction  of  the  Brit 
ish  government,  prior  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  When  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States  was  adopted,  it  became  the  supreme  law  and 
bond  of  union  between  twelve  slaveholding  states  and  one  non-slaveholding 
state ;  each  state  reserved  the  right  to  decide  the  question  of  slavery  for  it 
self — to  continue  it  as  a  domestic  institution  as  long  as  it  pleased,  and  to 
abolish  it  when  it  chose. 

In  pursuance  of  this  reserved  right,  six  of  the  original  slaveholding  states 
have  since  abolished  and  prohibited  slavery  within  their  limits  respectively, 
without  consulting  Congress  or  their  sister  states,  while  the  other  six  have  re 
tained  and  sustained  it  as  a  domestic  institution,  which,  in  their  opinion,  had 
become  so  firmly  ingrafted  on  their  social  systems  that  the  relation  between 
the  master  and  slave  could  not  be  dissolved  with  safety  to  either.  In  the 
mean  time,  eighteen  new  states  have  been  admitted  into  the  Union,  in  obedi 
ence  to  the  federal  Constitution,  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  states, 
including,  of  course,  the  right  of  each  to  decide  the  question  of  slavery  for  it 
self.  In  deciding  this  question,  it  has  so  happened  that  nine  of  these  new 
states  have  abolished  and  prohibited  slavery,  while  the  other  nine  have  re 
tained  and  regulated  it.  That  these  new  states  had  at  the  time  of  their  ad 
mission,  and  still  retain,  an  equal  right,  under  the  federal  Constitution,  with 
the  original  states,  to  decide  all  questions  of  domestic  policy  for  themselves, 
including  that  of  African  slavery,  ought  not  to  be  seriously  questioned,  and 
certainly  can  not  be  successfully  controverted. 

They  are  all  subject  to  the  same  supreme  law,  which,  by  the  consent  of 
each,  constitutes  the  only  limitation  upon  their  sovereign  authority. 


288  LIFE    OP    STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

Since  we  find  the  right  to  admit  new  states  enumerated  among  the  powers 
expressly  delegated  in  the  Constitution,  the  question  arises,  Whence  does  Con 
gress  derive  authority  to  organize  temporary  governments  for  the  Territories 
preparatory  to  their  admission  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the 
original  states  ?  Your  committee  are  not  prepared  to  adopt  the  reasoning 
which  deduces  the  power  from  that  other  clause  of  the  Constitution  which 
says, 

"  Congress  shall  have  power  to  dispose  of  and  make  all  needful  rules  and 
regulations  respecting  the  territory  or  other  property  belonging  to  the  United 
States." 

The  language  of  this  clause  is  much  more  appropriate  when  applied  to 
property  than  to  persons.  It  would  seem  to  have  been  employed  for  the  pur 
pose  of  conferring  upon  Congress  the  power  of  disposing  of  the  public  lands 
and  other  property  belonging  to  the  United  States,  and  to  make  all  needful  rules 
and  regulations  for  that  purpose,  rather  than  to  govern  the  people  who  might 
purchase  those  lands  from  the  United  States  and  become  residents  thereon. 
The  word  "territory"  was  an  appropriate  expression  to  designate  that  large 
area  of  public  lands  of  which  the  United  States  had  become  the  owner  by 
virtue  of  the  Revolution,  and  the  cession  by  the  several  states.  The  addition 
al  words,  "or  other  property  belonging  to  the  United  States,"  clearly  show 
that  the  term  "territory"  was  used  in  its  ordinary  geographical  sense  to 
designate  the  public  domain,  and  not  as  descriptive  of  the  whole  body  of  the 
people,  constituting  a  distinct  political  community,  who  have  no  representa 
tion  in  Congress,  and  consequently  no  voice  in  making  the  laws  upon  which 
all  their  rights  and  liberties  would  depend,  if  it  were  conceded  that  Congress 
had  the  general  and  unlimited  power  to  make  all  "  needful  rules  and  regu 
lations  concerning"  their  internal  affairs  and  domestic  concerns.  It  is  under 
this  clause  of  the  Constitution,  and  from  this  alone,  that  Congress  derives 
authority  to  provide  for  the  surveys  of  the  public  lands,  for  securing  pre-emp 
tion  rights  to  actual  settlers,  for  the  establishment  of  land-offices  in  the  sev 
eral  states  and  Territories,  for  exposing  the  lands  to  private  and  public  sale, 
for  issuing  patents  and  confirming  titles,  and,  in  short,  for  making  all  need 
ful  rules  and  regulations  for  protecting  and  disposing  of  the  public  domain 
and  other  property  belonging  to  the  United  States. 

These  needful  rules  and  regulations  may  be  embraced,  and  usually  are 
found,  in  general  laws  applicable  alike  to  states  and  Territories  wherever  the 
United  States  may  be  the  owner  of  the  lands  or  other  property  to  be  regulated 
or  disposed  of.  It  can  make  no  difference,  under  this  clause  of  the  Consti 
tution,  whether  the  "territory,  or  other  property  belonging  to  the  United 
States,"  shall  be  situated  in  Ohio  or  Kansas,  in  Alabama  or  Minnesota,  in 
California  or  Oregon  ;  the  power  of  Congress  to  make  needful  rules  and  regu 
lations  is  the  same  in  the  states  and  Territories,  to  the  extent  that  the  title  is 
vested  in  the  United  States.  Inasmuch  as  the  right  of  legislation  in  such 
cases  rests  exclusively  upon  the  fact  of  ownership,  it  is  obvious  it  can  extend 
only  to  the  tracts  of  land  to  which  the  United  States  possess  the  title,  and 
must  cease  in  respect  to  each  tract  the  instant  it  becomes  private  property  by 
purchase  from  the  United  States.  It  will  scarcely  be  contended  that  Con 
gress  possesses  the  power  to  legislate  for  the  people  of  those  states  in  which 
public  lands  may  be  located,  in  respect  to  their  internal  affairs  and  domestic 
concerns,  merely  because  the  United  States  may  be  so  fortunate  as  to  own  a 
portion  of  the  territory  and  other  property  within  the  limits  of  those  states. 
Yet  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  clause  of  the  Constitution  confers 
upon  Congress  the  same  power  to  make  needful  rules  and  regulations  in  the 
states  as  it  does  in  the  Territories,  concerning  the  territory  or  other  property 
belonging  to  the  United  States. 

In  view  of  these  considerations,  your  committee  are  not  prepared  to  affirm 


KANSAS   AND   HEK   GOVERNMENTS.  289 

that  Congress  derives  authority  to  institute  governments  for  the  people  of  the 
Territories  from  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  confers  the  right  to 
make  needful  rules  and  regulations  concerning  the  territory  or  other  proper 
ty  belonging  to  the  United  States ;  much  less  can  we  deduce  the  power  from 
any  supposed  necessity,  arising  outside  of  the  Constitution,  and  not  provided 
for  in  that  instrument.  The  federal  government  is  one  of  delegated  and 
limited  powers,  clothed  with  no  rightful  authority  which  does  not  result  di 
rectly  and  necessarily  from  the  Constitution.  Necessity,  when  experience 
shall  have  clearly  demonstrated  its  existence,  may  furnish  satisfactory  rea 
sons  for  enlarging  the  authority  of  the  federal  government,  by  amendments 
to  the  Constitution,  in  the  mode  prescribed  in  that  instrument,  but  can  not 
afford  the  slightest  excuse  for  the  assumption  of  powers  not  delegated,  and 
which,  by  the  tenth  amendment,  are  expressly  "reserved  to  the  states  re 
spectively,  or  to  the  people."  Hence,  before  the  power  can  be  safely  exer 
cised,  the  right  of  Congress  to  organize  Territories,  by  instituting  temporary 
governments,  must  be  traced  directly  to  some  provision  of  the  Constitution 
conferring  the  authority  in  express  terms,  or  as  a  means  necessary  and  prop 
er  to  carry  into  effect  some  one  or  more  of  the  powers  which  are  specifically 
delegated.  Is  not  the  organization  of  a  Territory  eminently  necessary  and 
proper  as  a  means  of  enabling  the  people  thereof  to  form  and  mould  their  lo 
cal  and  domestic  institutions,  and  establish  a  state  government  under  the 
authority  of  the  Constitution,  preparatory  to  its  admission  into  the  Union  ? 
If  so,  the  right  of  Congress  to  pass  the  organic  act  for  the  temporary  govern 
ment  is  clearly  included  in  the  provision  which  authorizes  the  admission  of 
new  states.  This  power,  however,  being  an  incident  to  an  express  grant, 
and  resulting  from  it  by  necessary  implication,  as  an  appropriate  means  for 
carrying  it  into  effect,  must  be  exercised  in  harmony  with  the  nature  and 
objects  of  the  grant  from  which  it  is  deduced.  The  organic  act  of  the  Ter 
ritory,  deriving  its  validity  from  the  power  of  Congress  to  admit  new  states, 
must  contain  no  provision  or  restriction  which  would  destroy  or  impair  the 
equality  of  the  proposed  state  with  the  original  states,  or  impose  any  limita 
tion  upon  its  sovereignty  which  the  Constitution  has  not  placed  on  all  the 
states.  So  far  as  the  organization  of  a  Territory  may  be  necessary  and  prop 
er  as  a  means  of  carrying  into  effect  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  for  the 
admission  of  new  states,  and  when  exercised  with  reference  only  to  that  end, 
the  power  of  Congress  is  clear  and  explicit ;  but  beyond  that  point  the  au 
thority  can  not  extend,  for  the  icason  that  all  "powers  not  delegated  to  the 
United  States  by  the  Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  states,  are  re 
served  to  the  states  respectively,  or  to  the  people."  In  other  words,  the  or 
ganic  act  of  the  Territory,  conforming  to  the  spirit  of  the  grant  from  which 
it  receives  its  validity,  must  leave  the  people  entirely  free  to  form  and  regu 
late  their  domestic  institutions  and  internal  concerns  in  their  own  way,  sub 
ject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  to  the  end  that  when  they 
attain  the  requisite  population,  and  establish  a  state  government  in  conform 
ity  to  the  federal  Constitution,  they  may  be  admitted  into  the  Union  on  an 
equal  footing  with  the  original  states  in  all  respects  whatsoever. 

[He  then  traced  the  history  of  the  Massachusetts  Emigrant  Aid  Society, 
and  of  the  Missouri  organizations,  and  proceeded  as  follows  :] 

.If  the  people  of  any  state  should  become  so  much  enamored  with  their 
own  peculiar  institution  as  to  conceive  the  philanthropic  scheme  of  forcing  so 
great  a  blessing  on  their  unwilling  neighbors,  and  with  that  view  should  cre 
ate  a  mammoth  moneyed  corporation,  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  sending  a 
sufficient  number  of  their  young  men  into  a  neighboring  state,  to  remain  long 
enough  to  acquire  the  right  of  voting,  with  the  fixed  and  paramount  object 
of  reversing  the  settled  policy  and  changing  the  domestic  institutions  of  such 
state,  would  it  not  be  deemed  an  act  of  aggression,  as  offensive  and  flagrant 

:NT 


290  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

as  if  attempted  by  direct  and  open  violence?  It  is  a  well-settled  principle 
of  constitutional  law  in  this  country,  that  while  all  the  states  of  the  Union 
are  united  in  one  for  certain  purposes,  yet  each  state,  in  respect  to  every 
thing  which  affects  its  domestic  policy  and  internal  concerns,  stands  in  the 
relation  of  a  foreign  power  to  every  other  state. 

Hence  no  state  has  a  right  to  pass  any  law,  or  do  or  authorize  any  act, 
with  the  view  to  influence  or  change  the  domestic  policy  of  any  other  state 
or  Territory  of  the  Union,  more  than  it  would  with  reference  to  France  or 
England,  or  any  other  foreign  state  with  which  we  are  at  peace.  Indeed, 
every  state  of  this  Union  is  under  higher  obligations  to  observe  a  friendly 
forbearance  and  generous  comity  toward  each  other  member  of  the  confeder 
acy  than  the  laws  of  nations  can  impose  on  foreign  states.  While  foreign 
states  are  restrained  from  all  acts  of  aggression  and  unkindness  only  by  that 
spirit  of  comity  which  the  laws  of  nations  enjoin  upon  all  friendly  powers, 
we  have  assumed  the  additional  obligation  to  obey  the  Constitution,  which 
secures  to  every  state  the  right  to  control  its  own  internal  affairs.  If  repug 
nance  to  domestic  slavery  can  justify  Massachusetts  in  incorporating  a  mam 
moth  company  to  influence  and  control  that  question  in  any  state  or  Territo 
ry  of  this  Union,  the  same  principle  of  action  would  authorize  France  or  En 
gland  to  use  the  same  means  to  accomplish  the  same  end  in  Brazil  or  Cuba, 
or  in  fifteen  states  of  this  Union ;  while  it  would  license  the  United  States  to 
interfere  with  serfdom  in  Eussia,  or  polygamy  in  Turkey,  or  any  other  ob 
noxious  institution  in  any  part  of  the  world.  The  same  principle  of  action, 
when  sanctioned  by  our  example,  would  authorize  all  the  kingdoms,  and 
empires,  and  despotisms  in  the  world  to  engage  in  a  common  crusade  against 
republicanism  in  America,  as  an.  institution  quite  as  obnoxious  to  them  as 
domestic  slavery  is  to  any  portion  of  the  people  of  the  United  States. 

If  our  obligations  arising  under  the  law  of  nations  are  so  imperative  as  to 
make  it  our  duty  to  enact  neutrality  laws,  and  to  exert  the  whole  power  and 
authority  of  the  executive  branch  of  the  government,  including  the  army  and 
navy,  to  enforce  them,  in  restraining  our  citizens  from  interfering  with  the 
internal  concerns  of  foreign  states,  can  the  obligations  of  each  state  and  Ter 
ritory  of  this  Union  be  less  imperative  under  the  federal  Constitution  to  ob 
serve  entire  neutrality  in  respect  to  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  several 
states  and  Territories  ?  Non-interference  with  the  internal  concerns  of  other 
states  is  recognized  by  all  civilized  countries  as  a  fundamental  principle  of 
the  laws  of  nations,  for  the  reason  that  the  peace  of  the  world  could  not  be 
maintained  for  a  single,  day  without  it.  How,  then,  can  we  hope  to  preserve 
peace  and  fraternal  feelings  among  the  different  portions  of  this  republic,  un 
less  we  yield  implicit  obedience  to  a  principle  which  has  all  the  sanction  of 
patriotic  duty  as  well  as  constitutional  obligation  ? 

When  the  emigrants  sent  out  by  the  Massachusetts  Emigrant  Aid  Com 
pany,  and  their  affiliated  societies,  passed  through  the  state  of  Missouri  in 
large  numbers  on  their  way  to  Kansas,  the  violence  of  their  language,  and 
the  unmistakable  indications  of  their  determined  hostility  to  the  domestic 
institutions  of  that  state  created  apprehensions  that  the  object  of  the  com 
pany  was  to  abolitionize  Kansas  as  a  means  of  prosecuting  a  relentless  war 
fare  upon  the  institutions  of  slavery  within  the  limits  of  Missouri.  These 
apprehensions  increased  and  spread  with  the  progress  of  events,  until  they 
became  the  settled  convictions  of  the  people  of  that  portion  of  the  state  most 
exposed  to  the  danger  by  their  proximity  to  the  Kansas  border.  The  nat 
ural  consequence  was,  that  immediate  steps  were  taken  by  the  people  of  the 
western  counties  of  Missouri  to  stimulate,  organize,  and  carry  into  effect  a 
system  of  emigration  similar  to  that  of  the  Massachusetts  Emigrant  Aid  Com 
pany,  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  counteracting  the  effects,  and  protecting 
themselves  and  their  domestic  institutions  from  the  consequences  of  that 
company's  operations. 


KANSAS    AND    HER    GOVERNMENTS.  291 

The  material  difference  in  the  character  of  the  two  rival  and  conflicting 
movements  consists  in  the  fact  that  the  one  had  its  origin  in  an  aggressive, 
and  the  other  in  a  defensive  policy ;  the  one  was  organized  in  pursuance  of 
the  provisions  and  claiming  to  act  under  the  authority  of  a  legislative  enact 
ment  of  a  distant  state,  whose  internal  prosperity  and  domestic  security  did 
not  depend  upon  the  success  of  the  movement ;  while  the  other  was  the 
spontaneous  action  of  the  people  living  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the 
theatre  of  operations,  excited,  by  a  sense  of  common  danger,  to  the  necessi 
ty  of  protecting  their  own  firesides  from  the  apprehended  horrors  of  servile 
insurrection  and  intestine  war.  Both  parties,  conceiving  it  to  be  essential 
to  the  success  of  their  respective  plans  that  they  should  be  upon  the  field  of 
operations  prior  to  the  first  election  in  the  Territory,  selected  principally 
young  men,  persons  unencumbered  by  families,  and  whose  conditions  in  life 
enabled  them  to  leave  at  a  moment's  warning,  and  move  with  great  celerity, 
to  go  at  once,  and  select  and  occupy  the  most  eligible  sites  and  favored  lo 
cations  in  the  Territory,  to  be  held  by  themselves  and  their  associates  who 
should  follow  them.  For  the  successful  prosecution  of  such  a  scheme,  the 
Missourians  Avho  lived  in  the  immediate  vicinity  possessed  peculiar  advant 
ages  over  their  rivals  from  the  more  remote  portions  of  the  Union.  Each 
family  could  send  one  of  its  members  across  the  line  to  mark  out  his  claim, 
erect  a  cabin,  and  put  in  a  small  crop,  sufficient  to  give  him  as  valid  a  right 
to  be  deemed  an  actual  settler  and  qualified  voter  as  those  who  were  being 
imported  by  the  Emigrant  Aid  Societies.  In  an  unoccupied  Territory,  where 
the  lands  have  not  been  surveyed,  and  where  there  were  no  marks  or  lines  to 
indicate  the  boundaries  of  sections  and  quarter  sections,  and  where  no  legal 
title  could  be  had  until  after  the  surveys  should  be  made,  disputes,  quarrels, 
violence,  and  bloodshed  might  have  been  expected  as  the  natural  and  inev 
itable  consequences  of  such  extraordinary  systems  of  emigration,  which  di 
vided  and  arrayed  the  settlers  into  two  great  hostile  parties,  each  having  an 
inducement  to  claim  more  than  was  his  right,  in  order  to  hold  it  for  some 
new-comer  of  his  own  party,  and  at  the  same  time  prevent  persons  belonging 
to  the  opposite  party  from  settling  in  the  neighborhood.  As  a  result  of  this 
state  of  things,  the  great  mass  of  emigrants  from  the  Northwest  and  from 
other  states,  who  went  there  on  their  own  account,  with  no  other  object,  and 
influence  by  no  other  motives  than  to  improve  their  condition  and  secure 
good  homes  for  their  families,  were  compelled  to  array  themselves  under  the 
banner  of  one  of  these  hostile  parties,  in  order  to  insure  protection  to  them 
selves  and  their  claims  against  the  aggressions  and  violence  of  the  other. 

[He  then  traced  minutely  the  history  of  all  the  elections  held  in  Kansas, 
the  charges  of  fraud,  etc.,  and  the  legality  of  the  existing  Territorial  Legis 
lature,  and  proceeded :] 

Your  committee  have  not  considered  it  any  part  of  their  duty  to  examine 
and  review  each  enactment  and  provision  of  the  large  volume  of  laws  adopt 
ed  by  the  Legislature  of  Kansas  upon  almost  every  rightful  subject  of  legis 
lation,  and  affecting  nearly  every  relation  and  interest  in  life,  with  a  view 
cither  to  their  approval  or  their  disapproval  by  Congress,  for  the  reason  that 
local  laws,  confined  in  their  operation  to  the  internal  concerns  of  the  Terri 
tory,  the  control  and  management  of  which,  by  the  principles  of  the  federal 
Constitution,  as  well  as  by  the  very  terms  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  are 
confided  to  the  people  of  the  Territory,  to  be  determined  by  themselves 
through  their  representatives  in  their  local  Legislature,  and  not  by  the  Con 
gress,  in  which  they  have  no  representatives,  to  give  or  withhold  their  assent 
to  the  laws  upon  which  their  rights  and  liberties  may  all  depend.  Under 
these  laws  marriages  have  taken  place,  children  have  been  born,  deaths  have 
occurred,  estates  have  been  distributed,  contracts  have  been  made,  and  rights 
have  accrued  which  it  is  not  competent  for  Congress  to  divest,  If  there  can 


292  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

be  a  doubt  in  respect  to  the  validity  of  these  laws,  growing  out  of  the  alleged 
irregularity  of  the  election  of  the  members  of  the  Legislature,  or  the  lawful 
ness  of  the  place  where  its  sessions  were  held,  which  it  is  competent  for  any 
tribunal  to  inquire  into,  with  a  view  to  its  decision  at  this  day,  and  after  the 
series  of  events  which  have  ensued,  it  must  be  a  judicial  question,  over  which 
Congress  can  have  no  control,  and  which  can  be  determined  only  by  the 
courts  of  justice,  under  the  protection  and  sanction  of  the  Constitution. 

When  it  was  proposed  in  the  last  Congress  to  annul  the  acts  of  the  legis 
lative  assembly  of  Minnesota  incorporating  certain  railroad  companies,  this 
committee  reported  against  the  proposition,  and,  instead  of  annulling  the 
local  legislation  of  the  Territory,  recommended  the  repeal  of  that  clause  of 
the  organic  act  of  Minnesota  which  reserves  to  Congress  the  right  to  disap 
prove  its  laws.  That  recommendation  was  based  on  the  theory  that  the 
people  of  the  Territory,  being  citizens  of  the  United  States,  were  entitled  to 
the  privilege  of  self-government  in  obedience  to  the  Constitution  ;  and  if,  in 
the  exercise  of  this  right,  they  had  made  wise  and  just  laws,  they  ought  to 
be  permitted  to  enjoy  all  the  advantages  resulting  from  them ;  while,  on  the 
contrary,  if  they  had  made  unwise  and  unjust  laws,  they  should  abide  the 
consequences  of  their  own  acts  until  they  discovered,  acknowledged,  and 
corrected  their  errors. 

(The  report  then  reviewed  the  history  and  origin  of  the  Topeka  revolution, 
the  organization,  objects,  and  purposes  of  the  "Kansas  Legion,"  quoting 
from  the  history  of  all  the  new  states  that  all  movements  to  establish  new 
states  must  be  in  subordination  to  local  law,  and  having  no  validity  until  ap 
proved  by  the  action  of  Congress.  Having  elaborately  discussed  these  ques 
tions,  the  report  concluded  as  follows  :] 

These  facts  and  official  papers  prove  conclusively  that  the  proposition  to 
the  people  of  California  to  hold  a  convention  and  organize  a  state  govern 
ment  originated  with,  and  that  all  the  proceedings  were  had  in  subordination 
to,  the  authority  and  supremacy  of  the  existing  local  goA'ernment  of  the  Ter 
ritory,  under  the  advice  and  with  the  approval  of  the  executive  government 
of  the  United  States.  Hence  the  action  of  the  people  of  California  in  form 
ing  their  Constitution  and  state  government,  and  of  Congress  in  admitting 
the  state  into  the  Union,  can  not  be  cited,  with  the  least  show  of  justice  or 
fairness,  in  justification  or  palliation  of  the  revolutionary  movements  to  sub 
vert  the  government  which  Congress  has  established  in  Kansas. 

Nor  can  the  insurgents  derive  aid  or  comfort  from  the  position  assumed  by 
cither  party  to  the  unfortunate  controversy  which  arose  in  the  State  of  Rhode 
Island  a  few  years  ago,  when  an  effort  was  made  to  change  the  organic  law, 
and  set  up  a  state  government  in  opposition  to  the  one  then  in  existence 
under  the  charter  granted  by  Charles  the  Second  of  England.  Those  who 
were  engaged  in  that  unsuccessful  struggle  assumed,  as  fundamental  truths 
in  our  system  of  government,  that  Rhode  Island  was  a  sovereign  state  in  all 
that  pertained  to  her  internal  affairs ;  that  the  right  to  change  her  organic 
law  was  an  essential  attribute  of  sovereignty ;  that,  inasmuch  as  the  charter 
under  which  the  existing  government  was  organized  contained  no  provision 
for  changing  or  amending  the  same,  and  the  people  had  not  delegated  that 
right  to  the  Legislature  or  any  other  tribunal,  it  followed,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  that  they  had  retained  it,  and  were  at  liberty  to  exercise  it  in  such 
manner  as  to  them  should  seem  wise,  just,  and  proper. 

Without  deeming  it  necessary  to  express  any  opinion  on  this  occasion  in 
reference  to  the  merits  of  that  controversy,  it  is  evident  that  the  principles 
upon  which  it  was  conducted  are  not  involved  in  the  revolutionary  straggle 
now  going  on  in  Kansas ;  for  the  reason,  that  the  sovereignty  of  a  Territory 
remains  in  abeyance,  suspended  in  the  United  States,  in  trust  for  the  people, 
until  they  shall  be  admitted  into  the  Union  as  a  state.  In  the  mean  time 


KANSAS   AND    HER   GOVERNMENTS.  293 

they  are  entitled  to  enjoy  and  exercise  all  the  privileges  and  rights  of  self- 
government,  in  subordination  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  in 
obedience  to  their  organic  law  passed  by  Congress  in  pursuance  of  that  in 
strument.  These  rights  and  privileges  are  all  derived  from  the  Constitution 
through  the  act  of  Congress,  and  must  be  exercised  and  enjoyed  in  subjection 
to  all  the  limitations  and  restrictions  which  that  Constitution  imposes. 
Hence  it  is  clear  that  the  people  of  the  Territory  have  no  inherent  sovereign 
right  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  to  annul  the  laws  and  re 
sist  the  authority  of  the  Territorial  government  which  Congress  has  establish 
ed  in  obedience  to  the  Constitution. 

In  tracing,  step  by  step,  the  origin  and  history  of  these  Kansas  difficulties, 
your  committee  have  been  profoundly  impressed  with  the  significant  fact  that 
each  one  has  resulted  from  an  attempt  to  violate  or  circumvent  the  principles 
and  provisions  of  the  act  of  Congress  for  the  organization  of  Kansas  and  Ne 
braska.  The  leading  idea  and  fundamental  principle  of  the  Kansas-Nebras 
ka  Act,  as  expressed  in  the  law  itself,  was  to  leave  the  actual  settlers  and  bona 
fide  inhabitants  of  each  Territory  "  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their 
domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  Slates."  While  this  is  declared  to  be  "the  true  intent  and  meaning 
of  the  act,"  those  who  were  opposed  to  allowing  the  people  of  the  Territory, 
preparatory  to  their  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  state,  to  decide  the  Slav 
ery  question  for  themselves,  failing  to  accomplish  their  purpose  in  the  halls 
of  Congress,  and  under  the  authority  of  the  Constitution,  immediately  resort 
ed  in  their  respective  states  to  unusual  and  extraordinary  means  to  control 
the  political  destinies  and  shape  the  domestic  institutions  of  Kansas,  in  defi 
ance  of  the  wishes  and  regardless  of  the  rights  of  the  people  of  that  Territory 
as  guaranteed  by  their  organic  law.  Combinations  in  one  section  of  the 
Union  to  stimulate  an  unnatural  and  false  system  of  emigration,  with  the 
view  of  controlling  the  elections,  and  forcing  the  domestic  institutions  of  the 
Territory  to  assimilate  to  those  of  the  non-slaveholding  states,  were  followed, 
as  might  have  been  foreseen,  by  the  use  of  similar  means  in  the  slaveholding 
states  to  produce  directly  the  opposite  result.  To  these  causes,  and  to  these 
alone,  in  the  opinion  of  your  committee,  may  be  traced  the  origin  and  prog 
ress  of  all  the  controversies  and  disturbances  with  which  Kansas  is  now  con 
vulsed. 

If  these  unfortunate  troubles  have  resulted  as  natural  consequences  from 
unauthorized  and  improper  schemes  of  foreign  interference  with  the  internal 
affairs  and  domestic  concerns  of  the  Territory,  it  is  apparent  that  the  remedy 
must  be  sought  in  a  strict  adherence  to  the  principles,  and  rigid  enforcement 
of  the  provisions  of  the  organic  law.  In  this  connection  your  committee  feel 
sincere  satisfaction  in  commending  the  messages  and  proclamation  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  in  which  we  have  the  gratifying  assurance 
that  the  supremacy  of  the  laws  will  be  maintained ;  that  rebellion  will  be 
crushed ;  that  insurrection  will  be  suppressed ;  that  aggressive  intrusion  for 
the  purpose  of  deciding  elections,  or  any  other  purpose,  will  be  repelled  ;  that 
unauthorized  intermeddling  in  the  local  concerns  of  the  Territory,  both  from 
adjoining  and  distant  states,  will  be  prevented ;  that  the  federal  and  local 
laws  will  be  vindicated  against  all  attempts  of  organized  resistance  ;  and  that 
the  people  of  the  Territory  will  be  protected  in  the  establishment  of  their  own 
institutions,  undisturbed  by  encroachments  from  without,  and  in  the  full  en 
joyment  of  the  rights  of  self-government  assured  to  them  by  the  Constitution 
and  the  organic  law. 

In  view  of  these  assurances,  given  under  the  conviction  that  the  existing 
laws  confer  all  the  authority  necessary  to  the  performance  of  these  important 
duties,  and  that  the  whole  available  force  of  the  United  States  will  be  exerted 
to  the  extent  required  for  their  performance,  your  committee  repose  in  entire 


294  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

confidence  that  peace,  and  security,  and  law  will  prevail  in  Kansas.  If  any 
further  evidence  were  necessary  to  prove  that  all  the  collisions  and  difficulties 
in  Kansas  have  been  produced  by  the  schemes  of  foreign  interference  which 
have  been  developed  in  this  report,  in  violation  of  the  principles  and  in  eva 
sion  of  the  provisions  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  it  may  be  found  in  the 
fact  that  in  Nebraska,  to  which  the  Emigrant  Aid  Societies  did  not  extend 
their  operations,  and  into  which  the  stream  of  emigration  was  permitted  to 
flow  in  its  usual  and  natural  channels,  nothing  has  occurred  to  disturb  the 
peace  and  harmony  of  the  Territory,  while  the  principle  of  self-government, 
in  obedience  to  the  Constitution,  has  had  fair  play,  and  is  quietly  working 
out  its  legitimate  results. 

It  now  only  remains  for  your  committee  to  respond  to  the  two  specific 
recommendations  of  the  President  in  his  special  message.  They  are  as  fol 
lows  : 

' '  This,  it  seems  to  me,  can  be  best  accomplished  by  providing  that,  when 
the  inhabitants  of  Kansas  may  desire  it,  and  shall  be  of  sufficient  numbers  to 
constitute  a  state,  a  convention  of  delegates,  duly  elected  by  the  qualified 
voters,  shall  assemble  to  frame  a  Constitution,  and  thus  prepare,  through 
regular  and  lawful  moans,  for  its  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  state.  I  re 
spectfully  recommend  the  enactment  of  a  law  to  that  effect. 

"I  recommend,  also,  that  a  special  appropriation  be  made  to  defray  any 
expense  which  may  become  requisite  in  the  execution  of  the  laws  or  the 
maintenance  of  public  order  in  the  Territory  of  Kansas." 

In  compliance  with  the  first  recommendation,  your  committee  ask  leave  to 
report  a  bill  authorizing  the  Legislature  of  the  Territory  to  provide  by  law 
for  the  election  of  delegates  by  the  people,  and  the  assembling  of  a  conven 
tion  to  form  a  Constitution  and  state  government  preparatory  to  their  ad 
mission  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  states,  as  soon 
as  it  shall  appear,  by  a  census  to  be  taken  under  the  direction  of  the  governor, 
by  the  authority  of  the  Legislature,  that  the  Territory  contains  ninety-three 
thousand  four  hundred  and  twenty  inhabitants,  that  being  the  number  re 
quired  by  the  present  ratio  of  representation  for  a  member  of  Congress. 

In  compliance  with  the  other  recommendation,  your  committee  propose  to 
offer  to  the  Appropriation  Bill  an  amendment  appropriating  such  sum  as 
shall  be  fcmnd  necessary,  by  the  estimates  to  be  obtained,  for  the  purpose  in 
dicated  in  the  recommendation  of  the  President. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted  to  the  Senate  by  your  committee. 

On  the  20th  of  March  Mr.  Douglas  addressed  the  Senate,  in 
a  speech  of  three  hours,  in  vindication  of  the  principles  enun 
ciated  in  the  report  of  the  majority  of  the  committee.  In  that 
speech  he  reviewed  the  entire  troubles  of  Kansas,  and  traced 
them,  step  by  step,  to  the  attempts  made  to  violate  the  Kan- 
sas-lSTebraska  Act.  All  the  violence,  and  all  the  confusion,  ex 
citement,  and  distress,  were  the  natural  consequences  of  efforts 
made  by  persons  and  organizations  outside  of  Kansas  to  wrest 
from  the  people  of  that  Territory  the  privilege  of  governing 
themselves.  On  the  4th  of  April — the  debate  having  been 
continued  from  time  to  time — Mr.  Collamer,  of  Vermont,  a 
member  of  the  Committee  on  Territories,  having  concluded  his 
speech  in  opposition  to  the  reasoning  and  conclusions  of  the 


KANSAS   AND   HER   GOVERNMENTS.  295 

majority  report  made  by  Mr.  Douglas,  the  latter  gentleman  re 
plied  to  him  with  great  animation.  The  following  was  the 
closing  part  of  his  speech : 

Mr.  President,  I  have  said  enough  to  bring  back  the  points  to  the  position  in 
which  I  left  them,  in  my  former  speech.  I  am  not  going  to  follow  the  sen 
ator  from  Vermont  through  all  his  criticisms  on  the  majority  report.  They 
are  not  of  a  character  which  call  for  a  reply  at  this  time,  nor  would  it  be  fair 
to  detain  the  Senate  for  that  purpose  at  this  late  hour. 

The  senator  from  Vermont  has  explained  what  he  meant  by  the  word 
"experiment"  in  his  minority  report,  the  natural,  and  perhaps  unavoidable 
consequence  of  which  would  be  violence  and  bloodshed.  He  says  he  alluded 
to  the  experiment  of  the  Nebraska  Bill,  by  which  the  question  of  Slavery  was, 
for  the  first  time  in  our  history,  left  to  the  decision  of  the  people.  What  is 
the  objection  to  leaving  the  decision  of  that,  as  well  as  all  other  local  and 
domestic  questions,  to  the  people  who  are  immediately  interested  in  it? 

His  objection  is  that  it  has  a  tendency  to  bring  opposing  elements  and  in 
flammable  materials  into  collision  from  which  violence  may  be  apprehended. 
Does  not  the  same  objection  apply  to  all  other  questions  which  involve  the 
interests  and  excite  the  passions  of  men  as  well  as  the  question  of  Slavery  ? 
Does  it  not  apply  to  the  Maine  Liquor  Law,  to  railroad  controversies,  to  tax 
ation,  to  schools,  to  the  location  of  county  seats,  to  the  division  of  counties — 
in  short,  does  it  not  apply  to  all  questions  of  legislation  which  affect  the  prop 
erty  and  enlist  the  feelings  and  passions  of  the  community  ?  If  the  objection 
be  a  valid  one  against  the  Nebraska  Bill  in  respect  to  the  Slavery  question, 
it  applies  in  a  greater  or  less  degree  to  every  other  subject  of  legislation  in 
proportion  as  it  affects  the  interests  and  feelings  of  the  people.  It  is  an  ob 
jection  to  the  fundamental  principles  upon  which  all  free  governments  rest, 
and  which,  when  admitted  to  be  valid,  drives  us  irresistibly  to  despotism. 
The  argument  is  that  the  people  should  not  be  permitted  to  vote  upon  a  ques 
tion  involving  their  social  and  domestic  systems,  lest  there  might  arise  a  di 
versity  of  opinion  which  might  possibly  degenerate  into  quarrels  and  contro 
versies,  and  terminate  in  violence !  Hence  it  would  seem  to  follow  that  if 
the  people  were  allowed  any  voice  in  making  their  own  laws,  it  should  be 
confined  to  those  insignificant  questions  in  which  they  feel  no  interest,  and 
in  regard  to  which  there  could  be  no  probability  of  a  diversity  of  opinion ! 
Precious  boon — to  allow  the  people  to  vote  when  they  feel  no  interest  in  the 
question,  and  deny  them  the  privilege-  when  they  do,  for  fear  they  will  differ 
in  opinion  and  become  excited  about  it!  This  is  "the  experiment" — "the 
vice  of  a  mistaken  law" — to  which  the  senator  from  Vermont  traces  all  the 
difficulties  in  Kansas !  He  seems  to  be  under  the  impression  that  this  "  ex 
periment"  is  now  introduced  into  our  legislation  for  the  first  time  in  respect 
to  the  Slavery  question  by  the  Nebraska  Bill !  He  makes  the  Nebraska  Act 
a  far  more  important  measure — one  reflecting  infinitely  more  credit  upon  its 
author  than  I  ever  claimed  for  it !  I  was  under  the  impression  that  the  same 
principle,  or  experiment,  as  he  prefers  to  call  it,  was  involved  and  affirmed 
in  the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  and  incorporated  into  the  platforms  of 
the  Whig  party  and  of  the  Democratic  party  in  1852,  as  a  rule  of  action  by 
which  each  party  pledged  itself  to  be  governed  in  all  future  controversies  upon 
the  Slavery  question.  Did  not  the  acts  for  the  organization  of  the  Territories 
of  Utah  and  New  Mexico  tiy  the  same  "experiment ?"  Were  not  those  acts 
based  on  the  same  principle  ?  Did  not  those  acts  ' '  leave  the  people  perfectly 
free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject 
only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,"  with  the  guarantee  that,  when 
admitted  into  the  Union,  they  should  be  received  "with  or  without  slavery," 


296  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

as  their  Constitution  should  provide  at  the  time  of  admission  ?  Did  violence 
and  bloodshed  result  as  the  natural,  and  perhaps  unavoidable  consequences 
of  this  experiment  in  1850?  Have  any  such  consequences  resulted  from  the 
same  experiment  in  Nebraska  in  1854  ?  If  violence  and  bloodshed  are  the 
natural  consequences  of  such  an  experiment,  why  have  not  the  same  causes 
produced  like  effects  elsewhere  as  well  as  in  Kansas  ?  I  would  like  to  have 
this  inquiry  answered  by  the  senator  from  Vermont,  or  by  the  senator  from 
New  York  [Mr.  Seward'],  who  has  endorsed  his  report  and  pledged  himself 
to  make  good  its  positions.  I  will  give  them  the  benefit  of  my  answer  now. 
There  were  no  Emigrant  Aid  Societies  in  1850.  There  were  no  organized 
systems  of  foreign  interference  in  either  of  those  Territories.  The  Emigrant 
Aid  Societies  have  not  extended  their  operations  to  Nebraska.  The  "ex 
periment"  of  self-government — that  "vice  of  a  mistaken  law" — has  had  fair 
play  in  Nebraska ;  hence  nothing  has  occurred  in  that  Territory  to  disturb 
the  peace  and  quiet  of  the  inhabitants.  On  the  contrary,  in  Kansas,  where 
there  has  been  organized  foreign  interference— where  the  Emigrant  Aid  So 
cieties  concentrated  all  their  efforts  to  control  the  domestic  institutions  and 
local  legislation  of  the  Territory — violence  and  bloodshed  have  resulted  as 
the  natural  consequences,  not  of  the  "vice  of  a  mistaken  law,"  but  of  their 
experiment  of  foreign  interference  with  the  domestic  concerns  of  a  distant 
Territory ! 

But  the  senator  from  Vermont  has  made  one  concession  for  which  I  re 
turn  him  my  acknowledgments.  He  admits  that,  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  each  state  has  a  right  to  decide  the  Slavery  question  for  it 
self,  and  that  this  right  could  have  been  exercised  by  the  people  of  Kansas 
when  they  should  form  a  Constitution,  preparatory  to  their  admission  into 
the  Union,  even  if  the  Nebraska  Bill  had  not  repealed  the  Missouri  Com 
promise.  I  thank  him  for  this  admission.  I  hope  those  with  whom  he  acts 
will  endorse  the  proposition.  Then  I  woiild  like  to  have  him  and  them  ex 
plain  what  harm  the  repeal  has  done,  and  why  they  desire  to  have  it  re 
stored  ?  If  Kansas  could  have  become  a  slave  state  before  as  well  as  now, 
what  is  the  use  of  restoring  the  Missouri  Compromise  ? 

Mr.  Seward.  The  honorable  senator  will  excuse  me  for  calling  his  atten 
tion  to  a  misapprehension  under  which  he  labors  with  regard  to  the  remark 
of  the  senator  from  Vermont,  who  is  now  absent,  which  is  the  only  reason 
why  I  interpose. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  yield  the  floor  with  pleasure. 

Mr.  Seward.  I  heard  a  large  portion  of  the  senator's  speech,  and  I  did  not 
understand  him  to  say  that  a  state  -would  have  the  right  to  come  into  the 
Union  with  or  without  slavery,  as  her  people  pleased,  if  the  Compromise  Act 
had  not  been  repealed.  I  understood  him  to  say  that,  after  coming  in,  it 
would  have  the  right  to  establish  or  prohibit  slavery. 

Mr.  Toombs  and  several  other  senators.  No,  no. 

Mr.  Douglas.  On  the  contrary,  he  took  the  distinct  ground  that  a  state, 
when  its  people  assembled  to  form  a  Constitution,  preparatory  to  admission, 
had  the  right  to  come  in  with  or  without  slavery,  even  under  the  Missouri 
Compromise. 

Mr.  Seward.  I  did  not  hear  that. 

Mr.  Douglas.  My  colleague  came  to  the  same  conclusion  the  other  day  in 
his  speech.  We  seem  to  be  making  converts  to  the  true  doctrine.  It  is  a 
sound  constitutional  principle.  If  we  get  men  to  admit  that  a  state  has  the 
right,  when  she  forms  her  Constitution,  either  to  have  slavery  or  not,  to  adopt 
or  reject  it  as  she  pleases,  it  is  a  pretty  good  step  toward  the  doctrine  of  the 
Nebraska  Bill.  When  that  admission  is  made,  I  want  to  know  what  you  all 
mean  when  you  talk  about  a  breach  of  faith  in  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise  ?  You  have  all  been  in  the  habit  of  saying  on  tho  stump,  and 


KANSAS   AND   HER    GOVERNMENTS.  297 

wherever  else  you  had  the  opportunity,  that  by  the  Nebraska  Bill  we  have 
broken  a  covenant  which  dedicated  Kansas  and  Nebraska  to  freedom  "FOR 
EVER."  We  are  now  told  that  "forever"  means  "  hereafter,"  and  lasts  only 
until  there  are  people  enough  to  form  a  state,  and  that  no  particular  num 
ber  is  required  for  that  purpose. 

The  senator  from  Vermont  attempts  to  ridicule  the  Nebraska  Bill  because 
it  contains  a  provision  declaring  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  to  be 
in  force  in  the  Territory.  He  desires  to  know  who  ever  doubted  that  such 
would  be  the  case  without  that  provision  ?  Who  was  ever  silly  enough  to 
suppose  that  the  Constitution  could  be  extended  by  law  over  a  Territory 
which  it  did  not  reach  without  such  law  ?  I  will  answer  his  question.  I 
will  tell  him  the  man.  It  was  no  less  a  person  than  Daniel  Webster — New 
England's  great  statesman,  whom  she  delighted  to  call  the  great  expounder 
of  the  Constitution.  Senators  who  were  then  members  of  this  body  have  not 
forgotten,  and  will  not  soon  forget,  the  debate  between  Mr.  Webster  and  Mr. 
Calhoun  upon  this  very  point,  in  which  the  former  contended  that  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States  did  not  extend  over  the  Territories  without  an 
Act  of  Congress  to  that  effect ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  great  Carolin 
ian  insisted  that  the  Constitution  was  coextensive  with  the  limits,  and  cov 
ered  all  the  territories  pertaining  to  the  republic.  Without  endorsing  the 
peculiar  opinions  of  Mr.  Webster  on  this  point,  Mr.  Clay  did  not  hesitate,  in 
deference  to  them,  to  adopt,  in  the  Compromises  of  1850,  the  identical  pro 
vision  which  the  senator  from  Vermont  now  attempts  to  ridicule,  under  the 
supposition  that  I  introduced  it  into  the  Nebraska  Act  for  the  first  time  in 
our  legislation.  I  copied  the  provision  from  the  compromise  measures  of 
1850  for  the  same  reasons  which  induced  Mr.  Clay  to  adopt  it,  although  it  is 
but  fair  to  say  that  I  never  did  concur  in  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Webster  that  the 
Constitution  did  not  apply  to  the  Territories  without  an  act  of  Congress  car 
rying  it  there. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  a  few  words  to  say  to  the  senator  from  New  York 
[Mr.  Seward]  before  I  close  my  remarks.  On  the  day  I  presented  to  the 
Senate  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Territories,  and  immediately  after  the 
minority  report  was  read  at  the  secretary's  desk,  he  rose  and  volunteered  the 
pledge  that  he  would  make  good  every  position  affirmed  by  it.  As  he  has 
the  floor  for  the  next  speech  upon  this  question,  he  will  be  expected  to  re 
deem  this  pledge,  or  acknowledge  his  inability  to  do  so.  One  of  these  posi 
tions  is,  that  the  "experiment"  of  allowing  the  people  to  settle  the  Slavery 
question  for  themselves  in  Territories  preparatory  to  their  admission  into  the 
Union  was  introduced  into  our  legislation  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of 
this  republic  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act ;  and  that,  if  violence  resulted 
from  this  experiment  as  a  natural,  and  perhaps  unavoidable  consequence,  it 
was  the  "  vice  of  a  mistaken  law."  I  call  on  the  senator  from  New  York  to 
sustain  the  truth  of  this  allegation.  I  desire  him  to  answer  specifically 
whether  the  compromise  measures  of  1850  did  not  leave  the  people  of  New 
Mexico  and  Utah  perfectly  free  to  decide  the  Slavery  question  for  themselves, 
and  guarantee  their  admission  into  the  Union  with  or  without  slavery,  as  their 
Constitution  should  provide  at  the  time  of  admission?  I  ask  him  if  he  did 
not  oppose  the  bills  for  the  organization  of  those  Territories  at  that  time 
for  the  reason  that  they  did  not  contain  the  Wilmot  Proviso  prohibiting 
slavery,  and  for  the  reason  that  they  did  contain  the  guarantee  that  they 
should  be  admitted  with  or  without  slavery,  as  they  should  decide  for  them 
selves?  When  he  answers  this  question,  I  would  like  to  have  him  explain 
at  the  same  time  whether  he  did  not  stand  pledged  in  1852  to  sustain  the 
Whig  Baltimore  platform,  and  to  support  General  Scott,  standing  on  that 
platform,  "with  the  resolutions  annexed,"  to  use  his  emphatic  language; 
and  whether  those  resolutions  did  not  bind  General  Scott,  and  the  party  sup- 

N  2 


298  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

porting  him,  to  carry  out  in  good  faith  the  compromise  measures  of  1850  "  in 
substance  and  in  principle  ?"  I  desire  a  direct  answer  on  these  points,  in 
order  that  the  Senate  may  judge  how  far  he  redeems  his  pledge  to  make  good 
the  positions  of  the  minority  report.  I  would  like  to  have  him  explain  the 
difference  between  the  "experiment"  of  the  compromise  measures  of  1850 
and  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act  of  1854,  in  allowing  the  people  to  decide 
the  Slavery  question  for  themselves,  and  whether  that  principle  in  each  case 
was  equally  the  "vice  of  a  mistaken  law?"  If  he  shall  answer  that  he  did 
regard  both  measures  in  the  same  light,  I  should  be  gratified  if  he  will  ex 
plain  how  it  was  that  he  united  with  the  Whig  party  in  1852  to  sustain  the 
"vice  of  that  mistaken  law,"  and  now  calls  upon  all  the  odds  and  ends, 
fragments  and  portions  of  parties  and  isms,  to  merge  all  differences  on  other 
points,  and  form  a,  fusion  with  him  on  the  isolated  point  of  eradicating  this 
"  vice  of  a  mistaken  law"  in  the  name  of  freedom  and  humanity  ?  While 
he  is  portraying  the  beauties  of  negro  freedom  and  equality,  and  demonstra 
ting  the  propriety  of  sacrificing  the  political  and  constitutional  rights  of 
20,000,000  of  white  people  for  the  benefit  of  3,000,000  of  negroes,  I  would 
be  glad  if  he  would  point  out  the  advantages  which  the  negro  will  derive 
from  the  admission  of  Kansas  with  the  Topeka  Constitution.  That  Consti 
tution  provides  that  as  long  as  Kansas  shall  be  a  state,  as  long  as  water  runs 
and  grass  grows,  no  negro,  FREE  or  slave,  shall  ever  live  or  breathe  under 
that  Constitution. 

Mr.  Seward.  Does  the  senator  wish  me  to  answer  now  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Seward.  Then  my  answer  is  that,  such  being  the  Constitution,  he  is 
wrong  in  the  premises  that  I  am  desirous  to  admit  the  State  of  Kansas  for 
the  benefit  of  the  negro.  It  must  be  for  the  benefit,  of  the  Avhite  man. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Am  I  to  understand  the  senator  that  he  has  abandoned  the 
cause  of  the  negro  upon  the  ground  that  his  freedom  and  equality  are  incon 
sistent  with  the  rights  of  the  white  man?  What  has  become  of  his  profes 
sions  of  sympathy  for  the  poor  negro  ?  What  are  we  to  think  of  the  sincer 
ity  of  his  professions  upon  this  subject? 

Mr.  Seward.  That  is  another  thing. 

Mr.  Douglas.  That  is  the  very  thing.  If  all  other  considerations  are  to  be 
made  to  yield  to  the  paramount  object  of  prohibiting  slavery  in  Kansas  upon 
the  ground  that  the  inequality  which  it  imposes  is  unjust  to  the  negro,  will 
that  injustice  be  removed  by  adopting  a  Constitution  which  in  effect  declares 
that  the  negro,  whether  free  or  slave,  shall  never  tread  the  soil,  nor  drink 
the  water,  nor  breathe  the  air  of  Kansas  ?  The  senator  from  New  York  ad 
mits  that  the  Constitution  with  which  he  proposes  by  his  bill  to  admit  Kan 
sas  contains  such  a  provision.  Under  the  code  of  laws  enacted  by  the  Terri 
torial  Legislature  of  Kansas,  which  the  senator,  in  common  with  his  party, 
professes  to  consider  monstrous  and  barbarous,  a  negro  may  go  to  Kansas 
and  be  protected  in  all  his  rights,  so  long  as  he  obeys  the  laws  of  the  land. 
In  order  to  get  rid  of  those  laws,  the  senator  from  New  York  proposes  to  give 
effect  to  a  constitutional  provision  which  is  designed  to  prevent  the  negro 
forever  from  entering  the  state. 

I  should  like  to  hear  from  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  on  this  point. 
I  believe  he  took  particular  pains  a  few  years  ago  to  arraign  the  State  of  Illi 
nois  for  inserting  a  similar  clause  in  her  Constitution. 

Mr.  Sumner.  Never. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Well,  perhaps  it  was  his  predecessor,  Mr.  Winthrop.  Upon 
reflection,  I  think  it  was.  I  think  it  once  became  my  duty  to  vindicate  the 
right  of  my  own  state  to  insert  such  a  clause  in  her  Constitution  against  the 
assaults  of  a  Massachusetts  senator.  Had  the  present  senator  been  here  at 
that  time,  and  found  it  necessary  to  have  spoken  on  the  subject,  is  it  as- 


KANSAS   AND   HEK   GOVEENMENTS.  299 

suming  too  much  to  venture  the  opinion  that  he  would  have  joined  in  that 
condemnation  ? 

Mr.  Sumner.  I  should  condemn  it,  certainly. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Then,  will  the  senator  approve  in  the  Constitution  of  Kansas 
what  he  condemns  in  the  Constitution  of  Illinois  ?  I  would  like  to  hear  the 
senator's  response  to  this  inquiry.  If  such  a  provision  was  wrong  in  Illinois, 
is  it  right  in  Kansas  ?  Had  not  the  Democratic  State  of  Illinois  as  good  a 
right  to  adopt  such  a  provision  as  the  Free-soil  party  of  Kansas  ?  Will  the 
senator  from  Massachusetts  vote  for  the  bill  introduced  by  the  senator  from 
New  York  to  admit  Kansas,  at  a  time  when  she  has  not  one  third  of  the  req 
uisite  population,  with  such  a  Constitution  ? 

I  do  not  wish  to  be  misunderstood  on  this  point.  I  object  to  the  admission 
of  Kansas  at  this  time,  and  under  existing  circumstances,  on  entirely  different 
grounds.  I  affirm  the  right  of  Illinois  to  put  such  a  clause  in  her  Constitu 
tion.  The  people  of  Illinois  had  a  right  to  do  as  they  pleased  on  that  sub 
ject.  We  tried  slavery  while  a  Territory,  notwithstanding  the  ordinance  of 
1787,  until  we  found  that  in  our  climate  and  with  our  productions  it  was  not 
good  for  us  to  retain  it,  and  for  that  reason  we  abolished  and  prohibited  it. 
When  we  decided  that  Illinois  should  be  a  free  state  we  also  determined  that 
it  should  be  a  white  state.  We  did  not  believe  in  the  equality  of  the  negro 
with  the  white  man,  and  hence  were  opposed  to  a  mixture  of  the  races.  The 
Constitution  of  Illinois  was  made  by  white  men  for  the  benefit  of  white  men. 
The  same  principle  of  state  rights  and  state  equality  which  authorized  Illinois 
to  abolish  slavery  secured  to  each  other  state  the  privilege  of  retaining  it  if  it 
chose.  The  same  principle  which  authorized  Illinois  to  exclude  the  free 
negro  allows  each  other  state  to  receive  him  if  agreeable  to  her  tastes  and 
consistent  with  her  interests.  We  are  perfectly  content  with  the  practical 
operation  of  this  great  principle,  which  teaches  the  people  of  each  separate 
community  to  mind  their  own  business,  and  accord  the  same  right  to  their 
neighbors.  Hence  I  should  have  no  controversy  with  the  senator  from  New 
York,  or  his  political  associates,  in  regard  to  this  particular  clause  in  the  Kan 
sas  Constitution,  did  they  not  claim  the  right,  and  insist  that  it  is  their  duty, 
to  examine  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  each  state  applying  for  ad 
mission,  and  then  either  to  admit  or  reject  the  application,  according  as  they 
may  approve  or  disapprove  the  Constitution.  It  is  on  this  ground  that  they 
claim  the  right  to  inquire  whether  the  Constitution  prohibits  or  protects 
slavery,  and  to  vote  for  a  free  state  and  against  a  slave  state.  It  was  on  this 
ground  that  the  Northern  States  voted  against  the  admission  of  Missouri  in 
1821 — one  year  after  the  adoption  of  the  Missouri  Compromise — because  the 
Constitution  had  a  similar  provision  against  free  negroes  to  the  one  in  the 
Kansas  Constitution.  Hence  I  desire  to  learn  from  the  senator  from  New 
York  whether  he  and  his  sympathizing  associates  do  really  approve  of  a  con 
stitutional  provision  which  shall  deny  to  the  negro  forever  not  merely  the 
right  to  enjoy  the  same  liberty  accorded  to  the  white  man,  but  also  the  right 
to  live  and  breathe  within  the  limits  of  the  proposed  State  of  Kansas. 

Mr.  Seward.  Will  the  honorable  senator  allow  me  to  answer  now  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Seward.  I  need  scarcely  inform  the  honorable  senator  that  I  do  not 
approve  of  any  such  provision  in  any  Constitution  in  the  world.  I  never  did, 
and  I  never  shall,  vote  to  approve  or  sanction,  in  any  Constitution  or  in  any 
law,  a  provision  which  tends  to  keep  any  human  being — any  member  of  the 
human  family  to  which  I  belong,  in  a  condition  of  degradation  below  the 
position  which  I  occupy  myself  except  for  his  own  fault  or  crime. 

Mr.  Douglas.  The  senator  does  not  approve  of  this  position,  and  never  can, 
for  the  reason  that  it  does  not  put  the  negro  on  an  equality  with  himself! 
Then,  will  he  vote  for  admitting  Kansas  in  this  irregular  manner,  and  with- 


300  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

out  the  requisite  population,  merely  because  her  Constitution  has  a  provision 
which  keeps  slaves  from  going  into  the  Territory,  together  with  another 
clause  "  which  tends  to  keep  a  man — being  a  member  of  the  human  family  to 
which  he  belongs — in  a  condition  of  degradation  below  the  position  which  he 
occupies  himself?"  Yet,  if  he  votes  for  his  own  bill  to  admit  Kansas  with 
the  Topeka  Constitution,  according  to  his  own  doctrine  he  does  vote  to  sanc 
tion  a  provision  to  keep  the  negro  out  altogether ;  he  will  not  allow  a  negro 
to  come  in  a  condition  either  below  him  or  above  him. 

Mr.  Seward.  You  can  take  it  either  way — above  or  below. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Yes ;  he  will  exclude  the  negro  absolutely  if  he  is  below  or 
above  him.  He  will  insist  upon  having  the  negro  upon  a  footing  of  entire 
and  perfect  equality  with  himself.  Yet,  if  his  bill  passes,  and  Kansas  is  ad 
mitted  with  the  Constitution  which  has  been  formed  and  presented  here,  all 
negroes,  both  free  and  slave,  are  forever  prohibited  from  entering  the  State 
of  Kansas  by  the  terms  of  the  instrument.  He  can  not  escape  the  responsi 
bility  of  this  result  on  the  plea  that  he  does  not  vote  directly  to  endorse  and 
sanction  the  Constitution  in  all  its  parts ;  for  his  doctrine,  and  the  doctrine 
of  his  party,  is  that  they  not  only  have  the  right,  but  that  it  is  their  duty  to 
examine  the  Constitution  in  all  its  parts,  and  vote  for  it  or  against  it,  accord 
ing  as  they  approve  or  disapprove  of  its  provisions,  and  especially  those  pro 
visions  which  degrade  the  negro  below  the  level  of  the  white  man.  He  must 
abandon  all  the  principles  to  which  his  life  has  been  devoted ;  he  must  aban 
don  the  creed  of  the  party  of  which  he  is  the  acknowledged  leader  before  he 
can  vote  for  his  own  bill.  The  Black  Republican  party  was  organized  and 
founded  on  the  fundamental  principle  of  perfect  and  entire  equality  of  rights 
and  privileges  between  the  negro.. and  the  white  man — an  equality  secured 
and  guaranteed  by  a  law  higher  than  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
In  your  creed,  as  proclaimed  to  the  world,  you  stand  pledged  against  "the 
admission  of  any  more  slave  states;" 

To  repeal  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law ; 

To  abolish  the  slave-trade  between  the  states ; 

To  prohibit  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia ; 

To  restore  the  prohibition  on  Kansas  and  Nebraska;  and 

To  acquire  no  more  territory  unless  slavery  shall  be  first  prohibited. 

That  is  your  creed,  authoritatively  proclaimed.  I  trust  there  is  to  be  no 
evading  or  dodging  the  issue — no  lowering  of  the  flag.  Let  each  party 
stand  by  its  principles  and  the  issues  as  you  have  presented  them  and  we 
have  accepted  them.  Let  us  have  a  fair,  bold  fight  before  the  people,  and 
then  let  the  verdict  be  pronounced. 

Mr.  Seward.  You  will  have  it. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  rejoice  in  this  assurance.  I  trust  the  senator  will  be  able 
to  bring  his  troops  up  to  the  line,  and  to  hold  them  there.  I  trust  there  is 
to  be  no  lowering  of  the  flag — no  abandonment  or  change  of  the  issues. 
There  are  rumors  afloat  that  you  are  about  to  strike  your  colors  ;  that  you 
propose  to  surrender  each  one  of  these  issues,  not  because  you  do  not  profess 
to  be  right,  but  because  you  can  not  succeed  in  the  right ;  that  you  propose 
to  throw  overboard  all  the  bold  men  who  distinguished  themselves  in  your 
service  in  fighting  the  anti-Nebraska  fight,  and  to  take  a  new  man,  who,  in 
consequence  of  not  being  committed  to  either  side,  will  be  enabled  to  cheat 
somebody  by  getting  votes  from  both  sides  !  Rumor  says  that  all  your  vet 
eran  generals  who  have  received  scars  and  wounds  in  the  anti-Nebraska 
campaign  are  now  considered  unfit  to  command,  and  are  to  be  laid  aside  in 
order  to  take  up  some  new  man  who  has  not  antagonized  with  the  great 
principles  of  self-government  and  state  equality.  Rumor  says  that,  in  pur 
suance  of  this  line  of  policy,  you  dare  not  allow  your  committees  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  to  bring  in  bills  to  redeem  your  pledges  and  cany 


KANSAS   AND    HER   GOVERNMENTS.  301 

out  your  principles  ;  that  there  is  to  be  no  bill  passed  in  your  Fusion  House 
to  repeal  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act — none  to  repeal  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law 
— none  to  abolish  the  slave-trade  between  the  states — none  to  abolish  slavery 
in  the  District  of  Columbia — none  to  redeem  any  one  of  your  pledges,  or 
carry  out  any  one  of  your  principles,  upon  which  you  secured  a  majority  in 
the  House  by  a  fusion  with  Northern  Know-nothingism.  Rumor  says  that 
your  committees  were  arranged  with  the  view  of  keeping  all  these  questions 
in  the  background  until  after  the  presidential  election,  in  order  that  the  agi 
tation  may  be  reopened  with  better  prospects  of  success  when  power  shall 
have  been  obtained  under  the  auspices  of  a  new  man,  who  has  not  been  crip 
pled  in  the  great  battle.  Would  it  not  be  a  curious  spectacle  to  see  this 
great  Anti-Nebraska  or  Black  Republican  party — which,  less  than  eighteen 
months  ago,  proclaimed  a  war  of  extermination,  in  which  no  quarter  was  to 
granted  or  received,  and  no  prisoners  to  be  taken — skirmishing  to  avoid  a 
pitched  battle,  and  get  an  opportunity  to  retreat  from  the  face  of  those  whom 
they  determined  to  hang,  and  burn,  and  torture  with  all  the  refinements  of 
cruelty  which  their  vengeance  could  devise  ?  Are  the  offices  and  patronage 
of  government  so  much  more  important  to  you  than  your  principles  that  you 
feel  it  your  duty  to  sacrifice  your  creed,  and  the  men  identified  with  it,  in 
order  to  get  power?  Are  you  prepared  to  ignore  the  material  points  in  issue 
for  fear  that  they  will  compromit  you  in  the  presidential  election  ? 

Mr.  Wade.  We  will  whip  you  then. 

Mr.  Douglas.  That  remains  to  be  seen.  We  are  prepared  to  give  you  a 
fair  fight  on  the  issues  you  have  tendered  and  we  accepted.  Let  the  presi 
dential  contest  be  one  of  principle  alone ;  let  the  principles  involved  be  dis 
tinctly  stated  and  boldly  met,  Avithout  any  attempts  at  concealment  or  equiv 
ocation  ;  let  the  result  be  a  verdict  of  approval  or  disapproval  so  emphatic 
that  it  can  not  be  misunderstood.  One  year  ago  you  promised  us  a  fair 
fight  in  the  ppen  field  upon  the  principles  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act! 
You  then  unfurled  your  banner,  and  bore  it  aloft  in  the  hands  of  your  own 
favorite  and  tried  leaders,  with  your  principles  emblazoned  upon  it.  Are 
you  now  preparing  to  lower  your  flag — to  throw  overboard  all  your  tried 
men  who  have  rendered  service  in  your  cause — and  issue  a  search-warrant  in 
hopes  of  finding  a  new  man,  who  has  not  antagonized  with  any  body,  and 
whose  principles  are  unknown,  for  the  purpose  of  cheating  somebody  by  get 
ting  votes  from  all  sorts  of  men  ?  Let  us  have  an  open  and  a  fair  fight. 
[Applause  in  the  galleries.] 

The  Chair.  The  galleries  will  be  cleared  if  these  demonstrations  are  re 
newed. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  will  not  pursue  the  subject  further. 

The  debate  on  the  bill  proceeded  from  d&y  to  day  without 
any  action  by  the  Senate  until  the  25th  of  June.  In  the  mean 
time,  Mr.  Seward  had  introduced  a  bill  in  the  nature  of  a  sub 
stitute,  proposing  to  admit  Kansas  as  a  state  under  the  Topeka 
Constitution ;  and  Mr.  Trumbull  had  prepared  a  bill  annexing 
Kansas  to  Nebraska,  and  making  it  subject  to  the  laws  and 
government  in  force  in  that  Territory,  and  abolishing  the  ex 
isting  government  in  Kansas.  Other  bills  had  been  proposed 
by  Messrs.  Clayton,  Geyer,  and  others.  On  the  25th  of  June, 
Mr.  Toombs,  of  Georgia,  introduced  an  amendment  in  the  na 
ture  of  a  substitute  for  the  whole  bill,  and  on  that  day  the 
pending  bill,  as  well  as  all  the  proposed  amendments  and  ^nb- 


302  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

stitutes,  were  recommitted  to  the  Committee  on  Territories. 
On  the  30th  of  June,  Mr.  Douglas,  from  the  committee,  re 
ported  a  bill  (the  Toombs  Bill,  of  which  so  much  was  said  in 
Illinois  during  the  election  of  1858)  in  lieu  of  all  the  proposi 
tions  referred  to  the  committee. 

In  the  report  accompanying  this  bill,  Mr.  Douglas  referred  to 
and  described  the  injustice  of  the  several  propositions  referred 
to  the  committee,  and  closed  a  comment  on  the  bill  to  admit 
Kansas  under  the  Topeka  Constitution  in  the  following  words 
— words  which  he  faithfully  adhered  to  subsequently  in  the 
Lecompton  controversy : 

"  The  question  now  arises  whether  a  Constitution,  made  by  a  political 
party  without  the  authority  of  law,  and  under  circumstances  which  afford  no 
safeguards  against  fraud,  and  no  guarantee  of  fairness,  and  raises  no  pre 
sumptions  that  it  embodies  the  wishes  and  sentiments  of  a  majority  of  the 
inhabitants,  shall  be  forced,  by  an  act  of  Congress,  upon  a  whole  people  as 
their  fundamental  law,  unalterable  for  nine  years. 

"In  the  opinion  of  your  committee,  whenever  a  Constitution  shall  be 
formed  in  any  Territory,  preparatory  to  its  admission  into  the  Union  as  a 
state,  justice,  the  genius  of  our  institutions,  the  whole  theory  of  our  republi 
can  system,  imperatively  demand  that  the  voice  of  the  people  shall  be  fairly 
expressed,  and  their  will  embodied  in  that  fundamental  law,  without  fraud, 
or  violence,  or  intimidation,  or  any  other  improper  or  unlawful  influence, 
and  subject  to  no  other  restrictions  than  those  imposed  by  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States." 

The  debate  was  renewed  on  the  new  bill,  and  at  eight 
o'clock  on  the  morning  of  the  3d  of  July,  after  a  continuous 
session  of  twenty  hours,  the  bill  was  passed — yeas  33,  nays  12, 
as  follows : 

Yeas — Allen  of  Rhode  Island,  Bayard  of  Delaware,  Bell  of  Tennessee,  Ben 
jamin  of  Louisiana,  Biggs  of  North  Carolina,  Bigler  of  Pennsylvania,  Bright 
of  Indiana,  Brodhead  of  Pennsylvania,  Brown  of  Mississippi,  Cass  of  Michi 
gan,  Clay  of  Alabama,  Crittenden  of  Kentucky,  Douglas  of  Illinois,  Evans 
of  South  Carolina,  Fitzpatrick  of  Alabama,  Geyer  of  Missouri,  Hunter  of 
Virginia,  Iverson  of  Georgia,  Johnson  of  Arkansas,  Jones  of  Iowa,  Mallory 
of  Florida,  Pratt  of  Maryland,  Pugh  of  Ohio,  Reid  of  North  Carolina,  Sebas 
tian  of  Arkansas,  Slidell  of  Louisiana,  Stuart  of  Michigan,  Thompson  of 
Kentucky,  Toombs  of  Georgia,  Toucey  of  Connecticut,  Weller  of  California, 
Wright  of  New  Jersey,  Yulee  of  Florida. 

Nays — Bell  of  New  Hampshire,  Collamer  of  Vermont,  Dodge  of  Wiscon 
sin,  Durkee  of  Wisconsin,  Fessenden  of  Maine,  Foot  of  Vermont,  Foster  of 
Connecticut,  Hale  of  New  Hampshire,  Seward  of  New  York,  Trumbull  of 
Illinois,  Wade  of  Ohio,  Wilson  of  Massachusetts. 

Pending  this  bill,  Mr.  Seward  moved  as  a  substitute  for  it  a 
proposition  to  admit  Kansas  as  a  state  under  the  Topeka  Con 
stitution,  and  the  amendment  received  11  votes. 

Happy  for  the  peace  and  tranquillity  of  Kansas,  and  of  the 
country,  would  it  have  been  had  this  bill  passed  Congress. 


KANSAS   AND    HER   GOVERNMENTS.  303 

But  the  fell  spirit  of  fanaticism  would  not  permit  a  settlement 
of  the  question,  particularly  on  the  eve  of  a  presidential  elec 
tion,  when  agitation  and  excitement  was  the  sole  available 
capital  and  stock  in  trade  of  the  party  having  a  majority  in 
the  House  of  Representatives. 

While  the  bill  was  pending  in  the  Senate,  a  bill  for  the  ad 
mission  of  Kansas  was  before  the  House  of  Representatives. 
On  the  1st  of  July  the  House  was  brought  to  a  direct  vote 
upon  it,  and  it  was  rejected — yeas  106,  nays  107.  A  motion 
to  reconsider  this-  vote  was  made  by  Mr.  Barclay,  of  Pennsyl 
vania,  and  on  the  3d  the  motion  to  reconsider  prevailed — yeas 
101,  nays  93  ;  and  on  the  same  day,  Thursday,  July  3d,  the 
bill  passed  the  House — yeas  99,  nays  97. 

Both  houses  adjourned  until  Monday,  the  7th.  In  the  Sen 
ate  the  House  bill  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Terri 
tories  ;  in  the  House  the  Senate  bill  was  suffered  to  lie  on  the 
speaker's  table.  On  the  8th  of  July  Mr.  Douglas  reported 
back  the  House  bill  for  the  admission  of  Kansas  as  a  state 
with  an  amendment — that  is,  striking  out  all  after  the  enacting 
clause,  and  inserting  in  lieu  of  it  the  provisions  of  the  bill  pass 
ed  by  the  Senate  on  the  3d  instant.  After  some  debate  the 
amendment  was  agreed  to,  and  the  bill,  as  amended,  passed — 
yeas  30,  nays  13.  The  Senate  bill  was  therefore  before  the 
House  in  two  forms,  first  as  a  Senate  bill,  and,  secondly,  as  an 
amendment  to  a  House  bill. 

No  action  was  had  in  the  House  on  these  bills  until  the  29th 
of  July,  when  Mr.  Dunn,  of  Indiana,  called  up  a  motion  he  had 
made  in  February  to  reconsider  a  vote  committing  a  bill  to 
annul  certain  acts  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  Kansas.  The 
House  having  reconsidered  the  motion  to  commit,  the  bill  was 
before  it  for  action,  thereupon  Mr.  Dunn  moved  to  strike  out 
all  after  the  enacting  clause,  and  insert  what  is  known  in  legis 
lative  history  as  the  "  Dunn  Bill."  He  moved  the  previous 
question,  and  under  its  operation  his  amendment  was  agreed 
to,  and  the  bill,  as  amended,  passed — yeas  88,  nays  74.  The 
title  was  then  changed  to  read,  "  An  Act  to  reorganize  the  Ter 
ritory  of  Kansas,  and  for  other  purposes."  The  bill,  when  re 
ceived  in  the  Senate,  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Terri 
tories. 

This  last  bill  received  the  almost  unanimous  vote  of  the  Re 
publicans  in  the  House.  It  was  an  extraordinary  effort  at 


304  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

legislation.  It  abolished  treaties ;  invaded  New  Mexico  ;  re- 
enacted  the  Missouri  restriction  against  slavery ;  re-enacted  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law ;  legalized  slavery  in  Kansas,  New  Mexico, 
and  Nebraska ;  and  declared  that  any  slave  who  might  have 
become  entitled  to  freedom  by  reason  of  having  been  carried 
into  the  Territories,  should  be  remanded  to  slavery  if  removed 
from  the  Territory  within  a  given  period ;  and  ratified  and  ap 
proved  all  the  laws  of  the  "  Border  Ruffian"  Legislature  of 
Kansas  upon  the  subject  of  slavery.  Such  an  extraordinary 
act  never  before  received  the  approval  of  either  house  of  Con 
gress,  and  in  voting  for  it  the  Republicans  voted  in  direct  op 
position  to  their  entire  code  of  political  professions.  Mr. 
Douglas,  on  the  llth  of  August,  reported  this  bill  back,  with  a 
recommendation  that  it  be  laid  on  the  table.  Mr.  Douglas 
made  a  written  report,  in  which  he  dissects  the  bill,  and  exposes 
with  master-hand  the  absurdities,  and,  it  might  almost  be  said, 
the  stultifications  of  those  Republicans  who  had  voted  for  it. 
The  report  says : 

The  first  section  of  the  bill  provides,  "That  all  that  part  of  the  territoiy 
of  the  United  States  which  lies  between  the  parallels  of  thirty-six  degrees  and 
thirty  minutes  and  forty  degrees  of  north  latitude,  and  which  is  east  of  the 
eastern  boundary  of  the  Territory  of  Utah  to  the  southeast  corner  thereof, 
and  east  of  a  line  thence  due  south  to  the  said  parallel  of  thirty-six  degrees 
thirty  minutes  north  latitude,  and  is  bounded  on  the  east  by  the  western 
boundary  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  shall  constitute  one  Territory,  and  shall  be, 
and  hereby  is,  constituted  and  organized  into  a  temporary  government  by  the 
name  of  the  Territory  of  Kansas." 

By  reference  to  the  map,  it  will  be  perceived  that,  in  addition  to  all  the 
country  embraced  within  the  limits  of  the  present  Territory  of  Kansas,  it  is 
proposed  to  include  in  the  new  Territory  all  the  country  between  the  south 
ern  boundary  of  the  Territory,  as  now  denned  by  law,  and  the  parallel  of 
36°  30',  extending  from  the  western  boundary  of  the  State  of  Missouri  across 
more  than  twelve  and  a  half  degrees  of  longitude,  and  being  about  thirty-five 
miles  in  width  at  the  eastern,  and  one  hundred  and  five  at  the  western  ex 
tremity.  The  eastern  portion  of  this  strip  of  country,  which  it  is  now  pro 
posed  to  incorporate  within,  and  render  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of,  the  Ter 
ritory  of  Kansas,  was  ceded,  with  other  territory,  to  the  Cherokee  Indians  by 
the  treaties  of  the  Gth  of  May,  1828,  April  12thJ  1833,  and  May  23,  1836,  for 
"a  permanent  home,  and  which  shall,  under  the  most  solemn  guarantee  of  the 
United  States,  be  and  remain  theirs  forever — A  HOME  THAT  SHALL  NEVER,  IN 

ALL  FUTURE  TIME,  BE  EMBARRASSED  BY  HAVING  EXTENDED  AROUND  IT  THE 
LINES,  OR  PLACED  OVER  IT  THE  JURISDICTION  OF  A  TERRITORY  OR  STATE,  nor 

be  pressed  upon  by  the  extension  in  any  way  of  any  of  the  limits  of  any  exist 
ing  Territory  or  state." 

In  view  of  this  "most  solemn  guaranty  of  the  United  States"  to  the  Cher- 
okees,  your  committee  can  not  refrain  from  the  expression  of  the  hope  and 
belief  that  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  passing  a  bill  to  extend  around 
this  Indian  country  the  lines  of  Kansas,  and  render  it  subject  to  the  jurisdic 
tion  of  that  Territory,  acted  without  due  consideration,  and  probably  without 


KANSAS   AND    HER   GOVERNMENTS.  305 

a  full  knowledge  of  these  treaty  stipulations.  When  the  organic  act  of  Kan 
sas  was  passed  in  1854,  the  parallel  of  thirty-seven  was  fixed  upon  as  the 
southern  boundary  of  the  Territory  instead  of  the  line  of  thirty-six  degrees 
and  thirty  minutes,  with  the  view  to  the  preservation  of  faith  on  the  part  of 
the  United  States  toward  these  Indians  ;  and,  lest  injustice  might  be  done  to 
other  Indian  tribes  who  held  their  lands  under  treaties  with  the  United 
States,  it  was  expressly  provided  "that  nothing  in  this  act  contained  shall  be 
construed  to  impair  the  rights  of  persons  or  property  now  pertaining  to  the 
Indians  in  said  Territory,  so  long  as  such  rights  shall  remain  unextinguished 
by  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  such  Indians,  or  to  include  any  ter 
ritory  which,  by  treaty  with  any  Indian  tribe,  is  not,  without  the  consent  of 
said  tribe,  to  be  included  within  the  territorial  limits  or  jurisdiction  of  any 
state  or  territory  ;  but  all  such  territory  shall  be  excepted  out  of  the  boundaries, 
and  constitute  no  part  of  the  Territory  of  Kansas."  In  these  considerations 
your  committee  find  insuperable  objections  to  that  portion  of  the  bill  from  the 
House  of  Representatives  which  proposes  to  include  within  the  limits,  and 
render  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Territory  of  Kansas,  any  part  of  the 
country  which"  is  thus  secured  to  the  Indians  by  solemn  treaty  stipulations. 

Nor  are  the  objections  less  formidable  to  incorporating  within  the  limits  of 
Kansas  that  portion  of  the  Territory  of  New  Mexico  which  lies  north  of  the 
line  of  36°  30',  and  east  of  the  Rio  Grande,  and  subjecting  it  to  the  operation 
of  the  other  provisions  of  the  bill.  That  part  of  New  Mexico,  containing 
about  15,000  square  miles,  was  purchased  from  Texas  by  one  of  the  acts 
known  as  the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  and  formed  a  part  of  the  terri 
tory  for  which  the  United  States  paid  the  State  of  Texas  ten  millions  of  dol 
lars.  The  second  section  of  the  act  of  Congress  which  contains  the  terms 
and  conditions  of  the  compact  between  the  United  States  and  Texas  for  the 
purchase  of  that  Territory,  incorporates  the  same  in  the  Territory  of  New 
Mexico,  with  the  following  guarantee  :  "  And  provided  further,  that  ivhen  ad 
mitted  as  a  slate,  the  said  Territory,  or  any  portion  of  the  same,  shall  be  re 
ceived  into  the  Union  with  or  without  slavery,  as  their  Constitution  may  pre 
scribe  at  the  time  of  their  admission." 

After  asserting  this  great  principle  of  state  equality  as  applicable  to  every 
portion  of  New  Mexico  under  the  Constitution,  and  as  guaranteed  in  the 
compact  with  Texas  by  fair  intendment,  so  far  as  the  country  was  acquired 
from  that  state,  the  seventh  section  of  the  same  act  provides  "  that  the  legis 
lative  power  of  the  said  Territovy  shall  extend  to  all  rightful  subjects  of  legis 
lation,  consistent  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  provis 
ions  of  this  act" — thus  leaving  the  people  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate 
their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution. 
It  is  now  proposed  in  the  bill  under  consideration  to  repudiate  these  guaran 
tees  and  violate  these  great  fundamental  principles  by  annexing  to  Kansas 
all  that  portion  of  the  country  acquired  from  Texas  which  lies  north  of  36° 
30',  and  imposing  upon  it  a  prohibition  of  slavery  forever,  from  and  after  the 
first  day  of  January,  1858,  regardless  of  the  rights  and  wishes  of  the  people 
who  may  inhabit  the  Territory. 

The  twenty-fourth  section  of  the  bill  is  in  the  following  Avords : 
"Sec.  24.* And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  so  much  of  the  fourteenth  sec 
tion,  and  also  so  much  of  the  thirty-second  section,  of  the  act  passed  at  the 
first  session  of  the  thirty-third  Congress,  commonly  known  as  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Act,  and  reads  as  follows,  to  wit :  '  Except  the  eighth  section  of 
the  act  preparatory  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union,  approved 
March  6,  1820,  which,  being  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  non-interven 
tion  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  states  and  Territories,  as  recognized  by 
the  legislation  of  1850,  commonly  called  the  compromise  measures,  is  hereby 
declared  inoperative  and  void ;  it  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this 


306  LIFE   OP   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  Territory  or  state,  nor  to  exclude  it  there 
from,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their 
domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States :  Provided,  That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  construed 
to  revive  or  put  in  force  any  law  or  regulation  which  may  have  existed  prior 
to  the  act  of  the  6th  of  March,  1820,  either  protecting,  establishing,  prohibit 
ing,  or  abolishing  slavery,'  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  repealed  ;  and  the  said 
eighth  section  of  said  act  of  the  6th  of  March,  1820,  is  hereby  revived  and 
declared  to  be  in  full  force  and  effect  within  the  said  Territories  of  Kansas 
and  Nebraska :  Provided,  however,  That  any  person  lawfully  held  to  service 
in  either  of  said  Territories  shall  not  be  discharged  from  such  service  by  rea 
son  of  such  repeal  and  revival  of  said  eighth  section,  if  such  person  shall  be 
permanently  removed  from  such  Territory  or  Territories,  prior  to  the  1st  day 
of  January,  1858 ;  and  any  child  or  children  born  in  either  of  said  Terri 
tories,  of  any  female  lawfully  held  to  service,  if  in  like  manner  removed 
without  said  Territories  before  the  expiration  of  that  date,  shall  not  be,  by 
reason  of  any  thing  in  this  act,  emancipated  from  any  service  it  might  have 
owed  had  this  act  never  been  passed :  And  provided  further,  That  any  person 
lawfully  held  to  service  in  any  other  state  or  Territory  of  the  United  States, 
and  escaping  into  either  the  Territory  of  Kansas  or  Nebraska,  may  be  re 
claimed  and  removed  to  the  person  or  place  where  such  service  is  due,  under 
any  law  of  the  United  States  which  shall  be  in  force  upon  the  subject." 

In  the  opinion  of  your  committee  there  are  various  grave  and  serious  ob 
jections  to  this  section  of  the  bill.  In  the  first  place,  it  expressly  repudiates 
and  condemns  the  great  fundamental  principles  of  self-government  and  state 
equality  which  it  was  the  paramount  object  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act  to 
maintain  and  perpetuate,  as  affirmed  in  the  following  provision  :  "It  being 
the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  Ter 
ritory  or  state,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof 
perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own 
way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

Not  content  with  repealing  this  wise  and  just  provision,  and  condemning 
the  sound  constitutional  principles  asserted  in  it,  the  bill  proceeds  to  legalize 
and  establish,  for  a  limited  time,  hereditary  slavery,  not  only  in  the  Territory 
of  Kansas  (where  there  is  no  other  local  or  affirmative  law  protecting  it  than 
the  enactments  of  the  Kansas  Territorial  Legislature,  which  have  been  al 
leged  to  be  illegal  and  void,  and  which  the  House  of  Representatives,  by 
amendments  to  the  appropriation  bills,  have  instructed  the  President  not  to 
enforce),  but  also  in  all  that  part  of  New  Mexico  which  it  is  proposed  to  in 
corporate  in  the  Territory  of  Kansas,  and  where  slavery  was  prohibited  by 
the  Mexican  law,  and  it  is  not  pretended  that  there  is  any  territorial  enact 
ment  recognizing  or  establishing  it.  Having  thus  asserted  and  exercised  the 
power  of  introducing  and  establishing  slavery  in  the  Territories  by  act  of 
Congress,  and  declaring  children  hereafter  born  therein  to  be  slaves  for  life 
and  their  posterity  after  them,  provided  they  shall  be  removed  therefrom 
within  a  special  period,  the  bill  proceeds  to  affirm  and  exercise  the  power  of 
prohibiting  slavery  in  the  same  Territories  forever  from  and  after  January  1 , 
1858,  by  enacting  and  putting  in  force  the  following  provision,  being  the  8th 
section  of  the  act  passed  March  6,  1820,  to  wit: 

"Sec.  8.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  in  all  that  territory  ceded  by 
France  to  the  United  States,  under  the  name  of  Louisiana,  which  lies  north 
of  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes  north  latitude,  not  included  within 
the  limits  of  the  state  contemplated  by  this  act,  slavery  and  involuntary  serv 
itude,  otherwise  than  in  the  punishment  of  crime,  whereof  the  parties  shall 
have  been  duly  convicted,  shall  be,  and  is  hereby,  forever  prohibited :  Pro 
vided  always,  That  any  person  escaping  into  the  same  from  whom  labor  or 


KANSAS  AND  HER  GOVERNMENTS.  307 

service  is  lawfully  claimed  in  any  state  or  Territory  of  the  United  States, 
such  fugitive  may  be  lawfully  reclaimed  and  conveyed  to  the  person  claim 
ing  his  or  her  labor  or  service  as  aforesaid." 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  8th  section  of  the  Missouri  Act  (commonly 
called  the  Missouri  Compromise)  by  its  terms  only  applied  to  the  territory 
acquired  from  France,  known  as  the  Louisiana  Purchase,  the  western  bound 
ary  of  which  was  denned  by  the  treaty  with  Spain  in  1819,  and  subsequently 
by  treaties  with  Mexico  and  Texas,  to  be  the  100th  meridian  of  longitude, 
while  the  bill  under  consideration,  under  the  guise  of  reviving  and  restoring 
that  provision,  extends  it  more  than  seven  degrees  of  longitude  farther  west 
ward,  and  applies  it  to  that  large  extent  of  territory  to  which  it  had  no  appli 
cation  in  its  original  enactment.  Nor  can  it  be  said  with  fairness  or  truth 
that  this  provision  was  applied  to  any  portion  of  the  territory  in  question  by 
the  ''joint  resolution  for  annexing  Texas  to  the  United  States,"  for  the  rea 
son  that  the  whole  territory  embraced  within  the  limits  of  the  Republic  of 
Texas  was  admitted  into  the  Union  as  one  state,  with  the  privilege  of  forming 
not  exceeding  four  other  states  out  of  the  State  of  Texas,  ' '  by  the  consent 
of  said  state,"  with  the  condition  that  "in  such  state  or  states  as  should  be 
formed  out  of  said  territory,  north  of  said  Missouri  Compromise  line,  slavery 
or  involuntary  servitude  (except  for  crime)  shall  be  prohibited." 

It  was  left  discretionary  with  Texas  to  remain  forever  one  state,  and  to  re 
tain  the  whole  of  her  territory  as  slave  territory,  or  to  consent  to  a  division, 
in  which  case  the  prohibition  would  take  effect,  by  virtue  of  the  compact, 
from  the  date  of  the  formation  of  a  new  state  within  the  limits  of  the  Repub 
lic  of  Texas  north  of  36°  30'.  If,  on  the  contrary,  Texas  should  determine 
to  withhold  her  assent,  no  such  new  state  could  ever  be  formed,  and  hence 
the  prohibition  would  never  take  effect.  All  difficulty,  however,  on  this  point 
has  been  removed  by  the  act  of  1850,  purchasing  from  Texas  all  that  portion 
of  her  territory  lying  north  of  36°  30',  and  incorporating  it  in  the  Territory 
of  New  Mexico,  with  the  guarantee  that,  "when  admitted  as  a  state,  the 
said  Territory,  or  any  portion  of  the  same,  shall  be  received  into  the  Union 
with  or  without  slavery,  as  their  Constitution  may  prescribe  at  the  time  of 
admission."  Hence  all  the  territory,  to  which  it  is  now  proposed  to  apply 
the  Missouri  restriction  for  the  first  time,  under  the  plea  of  restoring  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise  of  the  Gth  of  March,  1820,  is  protected  from  any  such  in 
vasion  of  the  rights  of  the  inhabitants  to  form  and  regulate  their  own  domes 
tic  affairs  in  their  own  way,  by  tlie  solemn  guaranties  contained  in  the  com 
promise  measures  of  1850,  which  blotted  out  the  geographical  line  as  a  di 
viding-line  between  free  territory  and  slave  territory,  and  substituted  for  it 
the  cardinal  principle  of  self-government  in  accordance  with  the  Constitu 
tion.  But  it  will  also  be  observed  that  the  bill  under  consideration  does  not 
propose  to  limit  the  restriction  to  the  territory  acquired  from  Texas,  nor  the 
country  on  the  east  side  of  the  Rio  Grande,  but  extend  it  across  that  river 
over  a  portion  of  the  territory  acquired  from  Mexico,  which  was  never  claim 
ed  by  Texas,  nor  embraced  within  the  Louisiana  Purchase,  and  to  which 
there  is  no  pretext  for  asserting  that  the  Missouri  Compromise  ever  applied. 
If,  in  the  application  of  the  8th  section  of  the  act  of  the  6th  of  March,  1820 
(commonly  called  the  Missouri  Compromise),  over  so  large  a  district  of  coun 
try  to  which  it  never  had  any  previous  application,  it  be  the  policy  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  to  return  to  the  "  obsolete  idea"  of  a  geographical 
line  as  a  dividing-line  in  all  time  to  come  between  slave  territory  and  free 
territory,  a  perpetual  barrier  against  the  advancement  of  slavery  on  the  one 
hand  and  free  institutions  on  the  other,  the  measure  falls  short  of  accom 
plishing  the  whole  of  their  object  in  not  extending  the  line  to  the  Pacific 
Ocean.  Your  committee  can  perceive  many  weighty  considerations  founded 
in  policy,  although  wanting  the  sanction  of  sound  constitutional  principles, 


308  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

which  might  be  urged  in  favor  of  such  a  measure,  inasmuch  as  the  barrier 
once  erected  from  ocean  to  ocean — permitting  slavery  on  the  one  side  and 
prohibiting  it  on  the  other — if  universally  acquiesced  in  and  religiously  ob 
served  as  a  patriotic  offering  upon  the  altar  of  our  common  country,  would 
put  an  end  to  the  controversy  forever,  and  form  a  bond  of  peace  and  broth 
erhood  in  the  future.  But,  unfortunately,  when  this  expedient  was  proposed 
by  the  Senate  in  1818,  it  was  indignantly  repudiated  by  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives,  and,  as  a  consequence,  the  whole  country  was  plunged  into  a 
whirlpool  of  sectional  strife  and  angry  crimination,  which  alarmed  the  great 
est  and  purest  patriots  of  the  land  for  the  safety  of  the  republic,  and  was 
only  rescued  from  the  impending  perils  by  the  adoption  of  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850,  which  abandoned  the  policy  of  a  geographical  line,  and 
substituted  for  it  the  great  principles  of  self-government  and  state  equality  in 
obedience  to  the  federal  Constitution.  In  view  of  the  history  of  the  past, 
your  committee  can  perceive  no  safety  in  the  future  except  in  a  strict  and  re 
ligious  fidelity  to  the  true  principles  of  the  Constitution  as  embodied  in  the 
adjustment  of  that  unfortunate  controversy,  and  adopted  by  the  whole  coun 
try  as  rules  of  action,  to  be  applied  in  all  future  time,  when  in  the  progress  of 
events  it  should  be  necessary  to  organize  Territories  or  admit  new  states. 
The  Kansas-Nebraska  Act  was  the  logical  sequence  of  the  compromise  meas 
ures  of  1850,  and  rendered  imperatively  necessaiy  in  order  to  establish  and 
perpetuate  the  principles  of  self-government  and  state  equality  in  the  organ 
ization  of  Territories  and  admission  of  new  states.  For  these  reasons  your 
committee  can  not  concur  with  the  House  of  Representatives  in  the  proposi 
tion  to  blot  out  from  the  organic  act  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska  those  essential 
provisions  and  cardinal  principles,  the  faithful  observance  of  which  can  alone 
preserve  the  just  rights  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  Territories,  and  maintain  the 
peace,  unity,  and  fraternity  of  the  republic.  The  great  object  is  to  withdraw 
the  Slavery  question  from  the  halls  of  Congress,  and  remand  its  decision  to 
the  psople  of  the  several  states  and  Territories,  subject  to  no  other  conditions 
or  restrictions  than  those  imposed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
Those  provisions  of  the  bill  under  consideration  which  introduce  and  estab 
lish  slavery,  together  with  those  which  abolish  and  prohibit  it,  are  alike  ob 
noxious  on  the  score  of  principle,  inasmuch  as  they  assert  and  exercise  the 
right  of  Congress  to  form  and  regulate  the  local  affairs  and  domestic  institu 
tions  of  a  distant  and  distinct  people  without  their  consent,  and  regardless  of 
their  rights  and  wishes.  To  avoid  all  misconstruction,  however,  upon  this 
point,  your  committee  deem  it  proper  to  remark,  that  their  objections  do  not 
apply  to  that  part  of  the  bill  which  extends  the  provisions  of  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law  to  the  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  and  provides  "  that 
any  person  lawfully  held  to  service  in  any  other  state  or  Territory,  and  escap 
ing  into  either  the  Territory  of  Kansas  or  Nebraska,  may  be  reclaimed  and 
removed  to  the  person  or  place  where  such  service  is  due,  under  any  law  of 
the  United  States  which  shall  be  in  force  upon  the  subject."  In  this  clause 
your  committee  are  rejoiced  to  find  a  frank  and  conscientious  acknowledg 
ment  of  the  duty  of  Congress  to  provide  efficient  laws  for  carrying  into  faith 
ful  execution  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  which 
provides  for  the  rendition  of  fugitive  slaves  as  well  as  all  other  obligations  im 
posed  by  that  instrument. 

The  preservation  of  our  free  institutions  depends  upon  a  faithful  observance 
of  the  Constitution  in  all  its  parts  ;  and  the  assurance  thus  furnished  that  the 
representatives  of  the  people  are  ever  ready  to  provide  new  and  additional 
guarantees  when  supposed  to  be  necessary  for  the  faithful  performance  of  that 
constitutional  obligation,  which  has  been  the  subject  of  the  severest  criticism 
in  some  portions  of  the  country,  can  not  fail  to  gratify  every  true  friend  of 
the  Union.  In  this  case,  however,  no  such  legislation  is  necessary,  inasmuch 


KANSAS   AND   HER   GOVERNMENTS.  300 

as  the  organic  act  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska  extended  the  provisions  of  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law  to  both  of  those  Territories. 

[After  quoting  the  15th  and  16th  sections  of  the  bill,  the  report  continues  :] 
It  will  be  observed  that  these  two  sections  recognize  the  validity  and  bind 
ing  force  of  the  entire  code  of  laws  enacted  at  the  Shawnee  Mission,  by  the 
Legislature  of  Kansas  Territory,  and  provide  for  the  faithful  execution  of  all 
those  enactments  except  the  criminal  code.  All  justices  of  the  peace,  con 
stables,  sheriffs,  and  all  other  judicial  and  ministerial  officers  now  in  office, 
are  required  to  continue  to  exercise  and  perform  the  duties  of  their  respective 
offices.  All  these  officers,  with  the  exception  of  the  governor,  three  judges, 
secretary,  and  marshal,  and  district  attorney,  were  elected  or  appointed  un 
der  the  laws  enacted  by  the  Legislature  of  Kansas,  while  their  powers,  func 
tions,  and  duties  are  all  prescribed  by  those  laws  and  none  others.  *  These 
officers  are  all  required  to  continue  to  perform  the  duties  of  their  respective 
offices,  by  observing  and  enforcing  all  the  laws  enacted  at  the  Shawnee  Mis 
sion,  except  the  criminal  code.  "All  suits,  process,  and  proceedings,  civil 
and  criminal,  at  law  and  in  chancery,  and  all  indictments  and  informations 
which  shall  be  pending  and  undetermined  in  the  courts  of  the  Territory  of 
Kansas  or  New  Mexico  when  this  act  shall  take  effect,  shall  remain  in  said 
courts  where  pending,  to  be  held,  tried,  prosecuted,  and  determined  in  such 
courts  AS  THOUGH  THIS  ACT  HAD  NOT  BEEN  PASSED."  The  election  laws,  and 
the  laws  concerning  slaves  and  slavery,  and  all  laws  protecting  the  rights  of 
persons  and  property,  and  affecting  all  the  relations  of  life,  are  recognized  as 
valid  and  required  to  be  enforced,  EXCEPTING  CRIMINAL  PROSECUTIONS,  BY 
INFORMATION  OR  INDICTMENT,  for  violating  or  disregarding  the  laws  of  the 
Legislature  of  Kansas,  all  such  prosecutions  are  required  to  be  forthwith  dis 
missed,  and  the  prisoners  set  at  liberty,  and  no  new  prosecutions  are  to  be 
commenced  for  ' '  any  violation  or  disregard  of  said  legislative  enactments  at 
any  time."  Such  is  the  legislation  provided  for  in  these  two  sections  of  the 
bill.  They  recognize  the  validity  of  the  laws  enacted  at  Shawnee  Mission, 
and  provide  for  the  enforcement  of  all  of  them  except  in  cases  of  criminal 
prosecution.  Your  committee  are  unable  to  perceive  how  the  passage  of 
such  a  bill  would  restore  peace,  quiet,  and  security  to  the  people  of  Kansas. 
It  has  been  alleged  that  there  are  in  that  Territory  organized  bands  of  law 
less  and  desperate  men,  who  are  in  the  constant  habit  of  pei-petrating  deeds 
of  violence — murdering  and  plundering  the  inhabitants,  stealing  their  prop 
erty,  burning  their  houses,  and  driving  peaceable  citizens  from  the  polls  on 
election  day,  and  even  from  the  Territory.  The  remedy  proposed  in  the 
bill  is  to  grant  to  the  perpetrators  of  these  crimes  a  general  amnesty  for  the 
past,  and  a  full  license  in  the  future  to  continue  their  bloody  work. 

There  is  no  law  in  force  in  Kansas  by  which  murder,  robbery,  larceny,  ar 
son,  and  other  crimes  known  to  the  criminal  codes  of  all  civilized  states,  can 
be  punished,  except  under  the  code  enacted  by  the  Legislature  of  Kansas  at 
the  Shawnee  Mission.  The  provisions  of  "An  Act  for  the  Punishment  of 
Crimes  against  the  United  States,"  approved  April  30,  1790,  are,  by  its  terms, 
confined  in  its  application  to  such  crimes  as  shall  be  committed  "within  any 
fort,  arsenal,  dock-yard,  magazine,  or  any  other  place  or  district  of  country 
under  the  sole  and  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,"  and  "upon 
the  high  seas  and  navigable  waters  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  any  particular 
state,"  but  has  never  been  held  or  construed  to  apply  to  the  Territories  of 
the  United  States.  The  act  of  the  3d  of  March,  1817,  "to  provide  for  the 
punishment  of  crimes  and  offenses  committed  within  the  Indian  boundaries," 
extends  the  provisions  of  the  said  act  of  1 790  to  the  Indian  country,  but  ex 
pressly  restricts  its  application,  as  its  title  imports,  to  crimes  committed 
"  within  any  town,  district,  or  territory  belonging  to  any  nation  or  nations,  tribe 
or  tribes  of  Indians."  Hence,  the  moment  the  Indian  title  is  extinguished, 


310  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

and  the  country  placed  under  the  jurisdiction  of  a  Territorial  government,  it 
ceases  to  be  "  under  the  sole  and  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States," 
and  is  no  longer  subject  to  the  provisions  of  either  of  the  above-cited  acts. 
Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  if  the  bill  from  the  House  of  Representatives  should 
become  a  law  with  the  provisions  granting  a  general  amnesty  in  respect  to  all 
past  crimes,  and  unlimited  license  in  the  future  to  perpetrate  such  outrages 
as  their  own  bad  passions  might  instigate,  there  would  be  no  law  in  force  in 
Kansas  to  punish  the  guilty  or  protect  the  innocent. 

Inasmuch  as  the  House  of  Representatives,  by  the  passage  of  the  bill  under 
consideration,  and  the  Senate,  by  its  bill  for  the  admission  of  Kansas  into 
the  Union,  have  each  recognized  the  validity  of  the  laws  enacted  by  the  Kan 
sas  Legislature  at  Shawnee  Mission,  so  far  as  they  are  consistent  with  the 
Constitution  and  the  organic  act,  and  affirmed  the  propriety  and  duty  of  en 
forcing  the  same,  except  in  certain  specified  cases,  it  becomes  important  to 
inquire  into  the  extent  of  the  differences  of  opinion  between  the  House  of 
Representatives  and  the  Senate,  in  respect  to  the  particular  laws  which  ought 
not  to  be  enforced.  The  Senate  has  already  declared  in  the  bill  for  the  ad 
mission  of  Kansas  into  the  Union  that  all  laws  and  enactments  in  said  Ter 
ritory  which  are  repugnant  to,  or  in  conflict  with,  the  great  principles  of  lib 
erty  and  justice,  as  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and 
the  organic  act,  and  embodied  in  the  18th  section  of  that  bill,  shall  be  null 
and  void,  and  that  none  such  shall  ever  be  enforced  or  executed  in  said  Ter 
ritory.  *  *  * 

It  is  true  that  there  is  apparently  another  point  of  difference  between  the 
two  houses,  arising  out  of  the  question  whether  the  people  of  Kansas  shall  be 
authorized  to  elect  delegates  to  a  convention  (with  proper  and  satisfactory 
safeguards  against  fraud,  violence,  and  illegal  voting),  and  form  a  Constitu 
tion  and  state  government  preparatory  to  their  admission  into  the  Union,  or 
whether  the  Territory  shall  be  reorganized  in  accordance  with  the  provisions 
of  the  bill  from  the  House,  and  left,  for  some  yeai's  to  come,  in  that  condi 
tion.  While  the  House  of  Representatives  has  recently  expressed  its  prefer 
ence  for  the  latter  proposition  by  the  passage  of  the  bill  under  consideration, 
your  committee  are  not  permitted  to  assume  that  they  have  insuperable  ob 
jections  to  the  admission  of  Kansas  at  this  time,  for  the  reason  that  a  few 
weeks  previous  they  passed  a  bill  to  admit  that  Territory  as  a  state,  with  the 
Topeka  Constitution.  Hence,  the  change  of  policy  on  the  part  of  the  House, 
in  abandoning  the  state  movement  with  the  Topeka  Constitution,  and  sub 
stituting  for  it  the  proposition  to  reorganize  the  Territory  and  leave  it  in  that 
condition,  must  be  taken  only  as  a  strong  expression  of  a  decided  preference 
on  the  part  of  the  House  for  the  bill  under  consideration,  and  not  as  conclu 
sive  evidence  of  insuperable  objections  to  a  fair  bill,  with  proper  and  suitable 
guarantees  against  fraud  and  illegal  voting,  to  authorize  the  people  of  Kansas 
to  form  a  Constitution  and  state  government  at  this  time. 

The  committee  recommended  that  the  bill  be  laid  on  the  ta 
ble.  The  bill  was  laid  on  the  table  in  the  Senate — yeas  35, 
nays  12,  no  one  venturing  to  approve  or  endorse  it  in  that 
body. 

The  House  did  not  act  on  either  of  the  Senate  bills  relating 
to  Kansas.  In  the  General  Appropriation  Bill  a  clause  was  in 
serted  providing  that  no  part  of  the  money  appropriated  there 
by  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  Territorial  government  in 
Kansas  should  be  drawn  from  the  treasury  until  all  the  crim- 


THE  LECOMPTON  CONTROVERSY.  311 

inal  prosecutions  on  charges  of  treason  in  Kansas,  or  for  viola 
tion  of  the  laws  of  the  Territorial  Legislature,  should  be  dis 
missed,  and  the  accused  parties  discharged. 

To  the  Army  Bill  the  House  attached  a  clause  that  no  part 
of  the  military  force  of  the  United  States  should  be  employed 
to  aid  in  the  enforcement  of  any  act  of  the  Kansas  Legislature ; 
requiring  the  President  to  disband  the  armed  militia  of  the 
Territory,  to  recall  all  the  United  States  arms  therein  distrib 
uted,  and  to  "  prevent  armed  men  going  into  the  Territory  to 
disturb  the  peace  or  to  aid  in  the  enforcement  or  resistance  of 
real  or  pretended  law." 

These  provisions  the  Senate  struck  out  of  the  bills.  The 
House  refused  to  agree  to  the  amendments  of  the  Senate,  and 
the  Senate  insisted  on  their  action.  Finally,  the  House  yield 
ed,  except  in  the  case  of  the  Army  Bill ;  and,  though  various 
committees  of  conference  were  held,  no  agreement  was  had, 
and  Congress,  on  the  18th  of  August,  adjourned  without  pass 
ing  the  Army  Bill. 

The  President  convened  Congress  next  day,  and  sent  a  mes 
sage  to  both  houses  urging  the  necessity  for  the  passage  of  ap 
propriations  for  the  army.  The  old  Army  Appropriation  Bill 
was  revised,  and  a  new  one  was  introduced ;  but  the  House  in- 
sisting'OTi  its  Kansas  legislation,  both  failed  under  the  disagree 
ing  votes  of  the  two  houses.  At  last,  on  a  third  bill,  on  the 
30th  of  August,  the  House,  by  a  vote  of  101  to  98,  receded 
from  its  position,  and  the  bill  passed.  Congress  adjourned  the 
same  day  without  any  legislation  for  Kansas. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  LECOMPTON  CONTROVERSY. 

THE  Lecompton  controversy  was  the  most  severe  and  pain 
ful  that  has  ever  attended  Mr.  Douglas's  public  career.  It 
was  also  one  that  elicited  from  him  a  greater  exhibition  of  his 
native  abilities  than  any  other  of  the  many  in  which  he  has 
been  engaged.  In  1846  he  took  the  high  strong  ground  of 
the  Democratic  party  as  declared  at  Baltimore  upon  the  Ore 
gon  Boundary  question.  He  sustained  the  President  to  the 
utmost  of  his  ability.  President  Polk,  however,  induced  by 
high  and  patriotic  motives,  thought  proper  to  yield  to  the  ad- 


312  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

vice  of  the  co-ordinate  branch  of  the  treaty-making  power,  and 
disposed  of  that  question  by  abandoning  54°  40'  and  accepting 
49°.  Upon  the  annexation  of  Texas,  Mr.  Douglas  took  ground 
in  favor  of  extending  and  renewing  the  line  of  36°  30'  as  a  set 
tlement  of  the  Slavery  question.  He  succeeded.  In  the  fierce 
controversies  on  the  Oregon  Territorial  Bill  he  reneived  time 
and  again  the  proposition  to  extend  the  Missouri  Compromise 
line  of  36°  30'  to  the  Pacific ;  his  efforts  proved  unavailing, 
and  that  bill  passed.  In  1850  he  had  supported  and  defended 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  and  the  compromise  acts  of  that  year 
— defended  them  in  the  presence  of  an  armed  and  hostile  meet 
ing  at  Chicago,  and  succeeded.  In  1 854  he  had  carried  through 
successfully  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  and,  through  violence 
and  denunciation  at  home  and  throughout  the  North,  had 
maintained  with  unfaltering  nerve  the  rectitude  of  his  conduct. 
In  1856  he  had  canvassed  Illinois  from  one  end  to  the  other, 
urging  the  election  of  Mr.  Buchanan  upon  the  ground  that  the 
Democratic  party  and  its  candidates  were  pledged  in  the  most 
solemn  manner  to  secure  to  the  people  of  the  Territories  the 
right  of  having  slavery  or  not,  as  they  of  their  own  free  action 
might  determine.  In  answer  to  the  cry  that  came  up  from 
every  Republican  orator — and  in  Illinois  the  leading  men  of 
that  party  from  all  parts  of  the  country  were  on  the  stump — 
that  the  government  of  Kansas,  her  officers,  and  Legislature, 
were  in  the  hands  of  the  "  Border  Ruffians,"  his  answer  was, 
that  no  matter  who  wrere  placed  over  the  people  temporarily, 
no  Constitution  could  be  adopted  nor  state  government  erect 
ed  that  was  not  called  into  being  by  the  votes  of  the  people 
in  ratifying  that  Constitution.  That  the  ultimate  power  of 
adopting  a  Constitution  was  in  the  hands  of  the  people,  and 
could  not  be  taken  from  them,  was  the  universal  answer  made 
to  the  charge  that  under  the  Nebraska  Act  Kansas  would  be 
made  a  slave  state  in  defiance  of  the  wishes  of  the  people.  On 
that  defense,  and  on  that  pledge  made  every  where  through 
out  the  campaign,  Illinois  preserved  her  ancient  credit,  and 
gave  her  electoral  vote  to  Mr.  Buchanan. 

After  the  inauguration  of  Mr.  Buchanan  it  was  deemed  ad 
visable  to  select  as  governor  of  Kansas  some  person  of  ability, 
who  had  also  discretion  to  regulate  that  ability,  and  personal 
character  entitling  him  to  the  respect  of  men  of  all  parties,  not 
only  in  the  country  generally,  but  particularly  in  Kansas. 


THE  LECOMPTON  CONTBOVEESY.  313 

Such  a  man  was  Robert  J.  Walker.  When  tendered  the  office 
he  peremptorily  declined  it.  It  was  a  position  in  which  there 
was  little  credit  to  be  gained,  and  a  vast  amount  of  responsi 
bility  and  vexation.  Those  who  had  previously  gone  there 
had  failed,  and  failed  most  miserably ;  indeed,  much  of  the 
trouble  that  had  existed  might  have  been  traced  to  the  incom- 
petency,  personal  unfitness,  or  corruption  of  those  who  had 
been  selected  as  governors.  Mr.  Douglas  was  particularly 
anxious  for  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Walker,  and  took  an  act 
ive  part  in  inducing  him  to  consent  to  go  to  Kansas  as  gov 
ernor.  After  long  and  serious  consideration,  Mr.  Walker  ac 
cepted  the  office;  in  so  doing,  he  placed  a  condition  on  file 
that  he  was  to  be  governor  with  the  assurance  that  he  was  to 
tell  the  people  of  Kansas  that  they  should  have  the  privilege 
of  voting  directly  for  or  against  any  Constitution  that  might 
be  prepared  for  them.  He  proceeded  to  Kansas,  and  in  his 
speeches  he  repeated  this  pledge,  and  in  so  doing  stated  that 
he  made  it  with  the  knowledge  and  approval  of  the  President 
and  his  cabinet;  and  that,  unless  the  Constitution  was  submit 
ted  to  the  people  for  ratification  or  rejection,  he  should  en 
deavor  to  defeat  it  before  Congress. 

Mr.  Douglas,  in  Illinois,  by  speeches  delivered  at  various 
parts  of  the  state,  referred  to  Governor  Walker's  course  as  a 
proof  that  the  pledges  he  had  made  during  the  previous  year, 
that  Mr.  Buchanan  would  faithfully  carry  out  the  spirit  of  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  were  about  to  be  redeemed  to  their 
letter. 

When  the  convention  met  in  Kansas,  and  while  it  was  in 
session,  it  became  obvious  that  a  large  portion  of  the  people, 
led  on  by  fanatical  and  turbulent  spirits,  would  not  participate 
in  forming  a  state  government.  While  this  was  to  be  regret 
ted,  yet  no  person  in  Illinois  believed  that  the  convention 
would  attempt  to  adopt  a  Constitution  without  providing  for 
its  submission  to  the  people.  Mr.  Calhoun  himself  was  sol 
emnly  pledged,  in  writing,  to  submit  the  Constitution  to  the 
people.  Mr.  Douglas  had  justified  the  course  of  Governor 
Walker  and  the  administration.  When  Congress  met,  in  De 
cember,  185V,  the  President's  Message  indicated  that,  as  a  mat 
ter  of  peace,  the  administration  would,  in  the  event  of  the 
Lecompton  Constitution  being  presented,  urge  the  admission 
of  Kansas  under  that  Constitution. 

O 


314  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS. 

The  President's  Message  was  communicated  on  the  8th  of 
December ;  after  it  was  read,  Mr.  Douglas  stated  that  he 
would  take  an  early  opportunity  to  express  his  views  upon  the 
subject  of  Kansas,  in  which  he  was  constrained  to  say  he  dif 
fered  with  the  President  to  some  extent.  On  the  next  day  he 
addressed  the  Senate  in  the  speech  of  which  some  extracts  are 
given  as  follows : 

Mr.  President, — When  yesterday  the  President's  Message  was  read  at  the 
clerk's  desk,  I  heard  it  but  imperfectly,  and  I  was  of  the  impression  that  the 
President  of  the  United  States  had  approved  and  endorsed  the  action  of  the 
Lecompton  Convention  in  Kansas.  Under  that  impression,  I  felt  it  my  duty 
to  state  that,  while  I  concurred  in  the  general  views  of  the  message,  yet,  so 
far  as  it  approved  or  endorsed  the  action  of  that  convention,  I  entirely  dis 
sented  from  it,  and  would  avail  myself  of  an  early  opportunity  to  state  my 
reasons  for  my  dissent.  Upon  a  more  careful  and  critical  examination  of 
the  message,  I  am  rejoiced  to  find  that  the  President  of  the  United  States 
has  not  recommended  that  Congress  shall  pass  a  law  to  receive  Kansas  into 
the  Union  under  the  Constitution  formed  at  Lecompton.  It  is  true  that  the 
tone  of  the  message  indicates  a  willingness  on  the  part  of  the  President  to 
sign  a  bill,  if  we  shall  see  proper  to  pass  one,  receiving  Kansas  into  the  Union 
under  that  Constitution.  But,  sir,  it  is  a  fact  of  great  significance,  and  wor 
thy  of  consideration,  that  the  President  has  refrained  from  any  endorsement 
of  the  convention,  and  from  any  recommendation  as  to  the  course  Congress 
should  pursue  with  regard  to  the  Constitution  there  formed. 

The  message  of  the  President  has  made  an  argument — an  unanswerable 
argument,  in  my  opinion — against  that  Constitution,  which  shows  clearly, 
whether  intended  to  arrive  at  the  result  or  not,  that,  consistently  with  his 
views  and  his  principles,  he  can  not  accept  that  Constitution.  He  has  ex 
pressed  his  deep  mortification  and  disappointment  that  the  Constitution  itself 
has  not  been  submitted  to  the  people  of  Kansas  for  their  acceptance  or  rejec 
tion.  He  informs  us  that  he  has  unqualifiedly  expressed  his  opinions  on  that 
subject  in  his  instructions  to  Governor  Walker,  assuming,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  that  the  Constitution  was  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  before  it  could 
have  any  vitality  or  validity.  He  goes  further,  and  tells  us  that  the  example 
set  by  Congress  in  the  Minnesota  case,  by  inserting  a  clause  in  the  enabling 
act  requiring  the  Constitution  to  bo  submitted  to  the  people,  ought  to  become 
a  uniform  rule,  not  to  be  departed  from  hereafter  in  any  case.  On  these  va 
rious  propositions  I  agree  entirely  with  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
and  I  am  prepared  now  to  sustain  that  uniform  rule  which  he  asks  us  to  pur 
sue  in  all  other  cases,  by  taking  the  Minnesota  provision  as  our  example. 

I  rejoice,  on  a  careful  perusal  of  the  message,  to  find  so  much  less  to  dis 
sent  from  than  I  was  under  the  impression  there  was,  from  the  hasty  reading 
and  imperfect  hearing  of  the  message  in  the  first  instance.  In  effect,  he  re 
fers  that  document  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States — as  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  refers  it — for  us  to  decide  upon  it  under  our  responsibil 
ity.  It  is  proper  that  he  should  have  thus  referred  it  to  us  as  a  matter  for 
Congressional  action,  and  not  as  an  administration  or  executive  measure,  for 
the  reason  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  says  that  ' '  Congress 
may  admit  new  states  into  the  Union."  Hence  we  find  the  Kansas  question 
before  us  now,  not  as  an  administration  measure,  not  as  an  executive  meas 
ure,  but  as  a  measure  coming  before  us  for  our  free  action,  without  any  rec 
ommendation  or  interference,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  the  administration  now 
in  possession  of  the  federal  government.  Sir,  I  propose  to  examine  this  ques- 


THE  LECOMPTON  CONTROVERSY.  315 

tion  calmly  and  fairly,  to  see  whether  or  not  we  can  properly  receive  Kansas 
into  the  Union  with  the  Constitution  formed  at  Lecompton. 

The  President,  after  expressing  his  regret,  and  mortification,  and  disap 
pointment  that  the  Constitution  had  not  been  submitted  to  the  people  in  pur 
suance  of  his  instructions  to  Governor  Walker,  and  in  pursuance  of  Governor 
Walker's  assurances  to  the  people,  says,  however,  that  by  the  Kansas-Ne 
braska  Act  the  Slavery  question  only  was  required  to  be  referred  to  the  peo 
ple,  and  the  remainder  of  the  Constitution  was  not  thus  required  to  be  sub 
mitted.  He  acknowledges  that,  as  a  general  rule,  on  general  principles,  the 
whole  Constitution  should  be  submitted ;  but,  according  to  his  understanding 
of  the  organic  act  of  Kansas,  there  was  an  imperative  obligation  to  submit 
the  Slavery  question  for  their  approval  or  disapproval,  but  no  obligation  to 
submit  the  entire  Constitution.  In  other  words,  he  regards  the  organic  act, 
the  Nebraska  Bill,  as  having  made  an  exception  of  the  Slaveiy  clause,  and 
provided  for  the  disposition  of  that  question  in  a  mode  different  from  that  in 
which  other  domestic  or  local,  as  contradistinguished  from  federal  questions, 
should  be  decided.  Sir,  permit  me  to  say,  with  profound  respect  for  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  that  I  conceive  that  on  this  point  he  has  com 
mitted  a  fundamental  error — an  error  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  his 
whole  argument  on  this  matter.  I  can  well  understand  how  that  distinguish 
ed  statesman  came  to  fall  into  this  error.  He  was  not  in  the  country  at  the 
time  the  Nebraska  Bill  was  passed ;  he  was  not  a  party  to  the  controversy 
and  the  discussion  that  took  place  during  its  passage.  He  was  then  repre 
senting  the  honor  and  the  dignity  of  the  country  with  great  wisdom  and  dis 
tinction  at  a  foreign  court.  Thus  deeply  engrossed,  his  whole  energies  were 
absorbed  in  conducting  great  diplomatic  questions,  that  diverted  his  attention 
from  the  mere  Territorial  questions  and  discussions  then  going  on  in  the 
Senate  and  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  before  the  people  at  home. 
Under  these  circumstances,  he  may  well  have  fallen  into  an  error,  radical 
and  fundamental  as  it  is,  in  regard  to  the  object  of  the  Nebraska  Bill  and 
the  principle  asserted  in  it. 

Now,  sir,  what  was  the  principle  enunciated  by  the  authors  and  support 
ers  of  that  bill  when  it  was  brought  forward  ?  Did  we  not  come  before  the 
country  and  say  that  we  repealed  the  Missouri  restriction  for  the  purpose  of 
substituting  and  carrying  out  as  a  general  rule  the  great  principle  of  self-gov 
ernment,  which  left  the  people  of  each  state  and  each  Territory  free  to  form 
and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  ?  In  support  of  that  proposition,  it  was  ar 
gued  here,  and  I  have  argued  it  wherever  I  have  spoken  in  various  states  of 
the  Union,  at  home  and  abroad,  every  where  I  have  endeavored  to  prove 
that  there  was  no  reason  why  an  exception  should  be  made  in  regard  to  the 
Slavery  question.  I  have  appealed  to  the  people,  if  \ve  did  not  all  agree, 
men  of  all  parties,  that  all  other  local  and  domestic  questions  should  be  sub 
mitted  to  the  people.  I  said  to  them,  "We  agree  that  the  people  shall  de 
cide  for  themselves  what  kind  of  a  judiciary  system  they  will  have  ;  we  agree 
that  the  people  shall  decide  what  kind  of  a  school  system  they  will  establish ; 
we  agree  that  the  people  shall  determine  for  themselves  what  kind  of  a  bank 
ing  system  they  will  have,  or  whether  they  will  have  any  banks  at  all ;  we 
agree  that  the  people  may  decide  for  themselves  what  shall  be  the  elective 
franchise  in  their  respective  states ;  they  shall  decide  for  themselves  what 
shall  be  the  rule  of  taxation  and  the  principles  upon  which  their  finance  shall 
be  regulated  ;  we  agree  that  they  may  decide  for  themselves  the  relations  be 
tween  husband  and  wife,  parent  and  child,  guardian  and  ward ;  and  why 
should  we  not  then  allow  them  to  decide  for  themselves  the  relations  between 
master  and  servant  ?  Why  make  an  exception  of  the  Slavery  question,  by 
taking  it  out  of  that  great  rule  of  self-government  which  applies  to  all  the 


316  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.  DOUGLAS. 

other  relations  of  life  ?"  The  very  first  proposition  in  the  Nebraska  Bill  was 
to  show  that  the  Missouri  restriction,  prohibiting  the  people  from  deciding 
the  Slavery  question  for  themselves,  constituted  an  exception  to  a  general 
rule,  in  violation  of  the  principle  of  self-government ;  and  hence  that  that 
exception  should  be  repealed,  and  the  Slavery  question,  like  all  other  ques 
tions,  submitted  to  the  people,  to  be  decided  for  themselves. 

Sir,  that  was  the  principle  on  which  the  Nebraska  Bill  was  defended  by  its 
friends.  Instead  of  making  the  Slavery  question  an  exception,  it  removed 
an  odious  exception  which  before  existed.  Its  whole  object  was  to  abolish 
that  odious  exception,  and  make  the  rule  general,  universal  in  its  application 
to  all  matters  which  were  local  and  domestic,  and  not  national  or  federal. 
For  this  reason  was  the  language  employed  which  the  President  has  quoted ; 
that  the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  Act,  commonly  called  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  was  repealed,  because  it  was  repugnant  to  the  principle  of  non 
intervention,  established  by  the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  "it  being  the 
true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act,  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  Territory 
or  state,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly 
free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  sub 
ject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States."  We  repealed  the  Mis 
souri  restriction  because  that  was  confined  to  slavery.  That  was  the  only 
exception  there  was  to  the  general  principle  of  self-government.  That  excep 
tion  was  taken  away  for  the  avowed  and  express  purpose  of  making  the  rule 
of  self-government  general  and  universal,  so  that  the  people  should  form  and 
regulate  all  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way. 

Sir,  what  would  this  boasted  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  have  been 
worth  if  it  applied  only  to  the  negro,  and  did  not  extend  to  the  white  man  ? 
Do  you  think  we  could  have  aroused  the  sympathies  and  the  patriotism  of 
this  broad  republic,  and  have  carried  the  presidential  election  last  year,  in 
the  face  of  a  tremendous  opposition,  on  the  principle  of  extending  the  right 
of  self-government  to  the  Negro  question,  but  denying  it  as  to  all  the  rela 
tions  affecting  white  men  ?  No,  sir.  We  aroused  the  patriotism  of  the 
country,  and  carried  the  election  in  defense  of  that  great  principle  which  al 
lowed  all  white  men  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  to  suit 
themselves — institutions  applicable  to  white  men  as  well  as  to  black  men — in 
stitutions  applicable  to  freemen  as  well  as  to  slaves — institutions  concerning 
all  the  relations  of  life,  and  not  the  mere  paltry  exception  of  the  Slavery  ques 
tion.  Sir,  I  have  spent  too  much  strength  and  breath,  and  health  too,  to  es 
tablish  this  great  principle  in  the  popular  heart,  now  to  see  it  frittered  away  by 
bringing  it  down  to  an  exception  that  applies  to  the  negro,  and  does  not  ex 
tend  to  the  benefit  of  the  white  man.  As  I  said  before,  I  can  well  imagine 
how  the  distinguished  and  eminent  patriot  and  statesman  now  at  the  head 
of  the  government  fell  into  the  error — for  error  it  is,  radical,  fundamental — 
and,  if  persevered  in,  subversive  of  that  platform  upon  which  he  was  elevated 
to  the  presidency  of  the  United  States. 

Then,  if  the  President  be  right  in  saying  that  by  the  Nebraska  Bill  the 
Slavery  question  must  be  submitted  to  the  people,  it  follows  inevitably  that 
every  other  clause  of  the  Constitution  must  also  be  submitted  to  the  people. 
The  Nebraska  Bill  said  that  the  people  should  be  left  "  perfectly  free  to  form 
and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way" — not  the  Slavery 
question,  not  the  Maine  Liquor  Law  question,  not  the  Banking  question,  not 
the  School  question,  not  the  Railroad  question,  but  "their  domestic  institu 
tions,"  meaning  each  and  all  the  questions  which  are  local,  not  national — 
state,  not  federal.  I  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  the  principles  enunciated 
so  boldly  and  enforced  with  so  much  ability  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  require  us,  out  of  respect  to  him  and  the  platform  on  which  he  was 
elec  d,  to  send  this  whole  question  back  to  the  people  of  Kansas,  and  enable 


THE  LECOMPTON  CONTROVERSY.  317 

them  to  say  -whether  or  not  the  Constitution  which  has  been  framed,  each 
and  every  clause  of  it,  meets  their  approbation. 

The  President,  in  his  message,  has  made  an  unanswerable  argument  in  fa 
vor  of  the  principle  which  requires  this  question  to  be  sent  back.  It  is  stated 
in  the  message  with  more  clearness  and  force  than  any  language  Avhich  I  can 
command ;  but  I  can  draw  your  attention  to  it,  and  refer  you  to  the  argu 
ment  in  the  message,  hoping  that  you  will  take  it  as  a  part  of  my  speech — as 
expressing  my  idea  more  forcibly  than  I  am  able  to  express  it.  The  Presi 
dent  says  that  a  question  of  great  interest,  like  the  Slavery  question,  can  not 
be  fairly  decided  by  a  convention  of  delegates,  for  the  reason  that  the  dele 
gates  are  elected  in  districts,  and  in  some  districts  a  delegate  is  elected  by  a 
small  majority ;  in  others  by  an  overwhelming  majority ;  so  that  it  often 
happens  that  a  majority  of  the  delegates  are  one  way,  while  a  majority  of  the 
people  are  the  other  way ;  and  therefore  it  would  be  unfair,  and  inconsistent 
with  the  great  principle  of  popular  sovereignty,  to  allow  a  body  of  delegates, 
not  representing  the  popular  voice,  to  establish  domestic  institutions  for  the 
mass  of  the  people.  This  is  the  President's  argument  to  show  that  you  can 
not  have  a  fair  and  honest  decision  without  submitting  it  to  the  popular  vote. 
The  same  argument  is  conclusive  with  regard  to  every  other  question,  as  well 
as  with  regard  to  Slavery. 

But,  Mr.  President,  it  is  intimated  in  the  message  that,  although  it  was  an 
unfortunate  circumstance,  much  to  be  regretted,  that  the  Lecompton  Conven 
tion  did  not  submit  the  Constitution  to  the  people,  yet  perhaps  it  may  be 
treated  as  regular,  because  the  convention  was  called  by  a  Territorial  Legis 
lature  which  had  been  repeatedly  recognized  by  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  as  a  legal  body.  I  beg  senators  not  to  fall  into  an  error  as  to  the  Presi 
dent's  meaning  on  this  point.  He  does  not  say,  he  does  not  mean,  that  this 
Convention  had  ever  been  recognized  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
as  legal  or  valid.  On  the  contrary,  he  knows,  as  we  here  know,  that  during 
last  Congress  I  reported  a  bill  from  the  Committee  on  Territories  to  author 
ize  the  people  of  Kansas  to  assemble  and  form  a  Constitution  for  themselves. 
Subsequently,  the  senator  from  Georgia  [Mr.  Toombs]  brought  forward  a 
substitute  for  my  bill,  which,  after  having  been  modified  by  him  and  myself 
in  consultation,  was  passed  by  the  Senate.  It  is  known  *in  the  country  as 
"the  Toombs  Bill."  It  authorized  the  people  of  Kansas  Territory  to  assem 
ble  in  convention  and  form  a  Constitution  preparatory  to  their  admission  into 
the  Union  as  a  state.  That  bill,  it  is  well  known,  was  defeated  in  the  House 
of  Representatives.  It  matters  not,  for  the  purpose  of  this  argument,  what 
was  the  reason  of  its  defeat.  Whether  the  reason  was  a  political  one ;  wheth 
er  it  had  reference  to  the  then  existing  contest  for  the  presidency ;  whether 
it  was  to  keep  open  the  Slavery  question ;  whether  it  was  a  conviction  that 
the  bill  would  not  be  fairly  carried  out ;  whether  it  was  because  there  were 
not  people  enough  in  Kansas  to  justify  the  formation  of  a  state — no  matter 
what  the  reason  was,  the  House  of  Representatives  refused  to  pass  that  bill, 
and  thus  denied  to  the  people  of  Kansas  the  right  to  form  a  Constitution  and 
state  government  at  this  time.  So  far  from  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  having  sanctioned  or  legalized  the  convention  which  assembled  at  Le 
compton,  it  expressly  withheld  its  assent.  The  assent  has  not  been  given, 
either  in  express  terms  or  by  implication ;  and  being  withheld,  this  Kansas 
Constitution  has  just  such  validity  and  just  such  authority  as  the  Territorial 
Legislature  of  Kansas  could  impart  to  it  without  the  assent  and  in  opposition 
to  the  known  will  of  Congress. 

Now,  sir,  let  me  ask  what  is  the  extent  of  the  authority  of  a  Territorial 
Legislature  as  to  calling  a  Constitutional  convention  without  the  consent  of 
Congress  ?  Fortunately  this  is  not  a  new  question ;  it  does  not  now  arise  for 
the  first  time.  When  the  Topeka  Constitution  was  presented  to  the  Senate 


318  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

nearly  two  years  ago,  it  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Territories,  with  a 
variety  of  measures  relating  to  Kansas.  The  committee  made  a  full  report 
upon  the  whole  subject.  That  report  reviewed  all  the  irregular  cases  which 
had  occurred  in  our  history  in  the  admission  of  new  states.  The  committee 
acted  on  the  supposition  that  whenever  Congress  had  passed  an  enabling  act 
authorizing  the  people  of  a  Territory  to  form  a  state  Constitution,  the  con 
vention  was  regular,  and  possessed  all  the  authority  which  Congress  had  del 
egated  to  it ;  but  whenever  Congress  had  failed  "or  refused  to  pass  an  en 
abling  act,  the  proceeding  was  irregular  and  void,  unless  vitality  was  im 
parted  to  it  by  a  subsequent  act  of  Congress,  adopting  and  confirming  it. 
The  friends  of  the  Topeka  Constitution  insisted  that,  although  their  proceed 
ings  were  irregular,  they  were  not  so  irregular  but  that  Congress  could  cure 
the  error  by  admitting  Kansas  with  that  Constitution.  They  cited  a  variety 
of  cases,  among  others  the  Arkansas  case.  In  my  report,  sanctioned  by  every 
member  of  the  Committee  on  Territories  except  the  senator  from  Vermont 
[Mr.  Collamer],  I  reviewed  the  Arkansas  case  as  well  as  the  others,  and  af 
firmed  the  doctrine  established  by  General  Jackson's  administration,  and 
enunciated  in  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Attorney  General  Butler,  a  part  of  which 
opinion  was  copied  into  the  report  and  published  to  the  country  at  the  time. 

Mr.  Douglas  then  discussed  the  question  in  all  its  aspects, 
and  closed  his  speech  as  follows  : 

The  President  tells  us  in  his  message,  that  the  whole  party  pledged  onr 
faith  and  our  honor  that  the  Slavery  question  should  be  submitted  to  the 
people,  without  any  restriction  or  qualification  whatever.  Does  this  schedule 
submit  it  without  qualification?  It  qualifies  it  by  saying,  "You  may  vote 
on  slavery  if  you  will  vote  for  the  Constitution,  but  you  shall  not  do  so  with 
out  doing  that."  That  is  a  very  important  qualification — a  qualification  that 
controls  a  man's  vote,  and  his  action,  and  his  conscience,  if  he  is  an  honest 
man — a  qualification  confessedly  in  violation  of  our  platform.  We  are  told 
by  the  President  that  our  faith  and  our  honor  are  pledged  that  the  Slavery 
clause  should  be  submitted  without  qualification  of  any  kind  whatever ;  and 
now  am  I  to  be  called  upon  to  forfeit  my  faith  and  my  honor  in  order  to  ena 
ble  a  small  minority  of  the  people  of  Kansas  to  defraud  the  majority  of  that 
people  out  of  their  elective  franchise  ?  Sir,  my  honor  is  pledged  ;  and  before 
it  shall  be  tarnished  I  will  take  whatever  consequences  personal  to  myself 
may  come  ;  but  never  ask  me  to  do  an  act  which  the  President,  in  his  mes 
sage,  has  said  is  a  forfeitm-e  of  faith,  a  violation  of  honor,  and  that  merely 
for  the  expediency  of  saving  the  party.  I  will  go  as  far  as  any  of  you  to 
save  the  party.  I  have  as  much  heart  in  the  great  cause  that  binds  us  to 
gether  as  any  man  living.  I  will  sacrifice  any  thing  short  of  principle  and 
honor  for  the  peace  of  the  party ;  but  if  the  party  will  not  stand  by  its  prin 
ciples,  its  faith,  its  pledges,,  I  will  stand  there,  and  abide  whatever  conse 
quences  may  result  from  the  position. 

Let  me  ask  you,  why  force  this  Constitution  down  the  throats  of  the  peo 
ple  of  Kansas  in  opposition  to  their  wishes  and  in  violation  of  our  pledges  ? 
What  great  object  is  to  be  attained?  Cui  bono?  What  are  you  to  gain  by 
it  ?  Will  you  sustain  the  party  by  violating  its  principles?  Do  you  propose 
to  keep  the  party  united  by  forcing  a  division  ?  Stand  by  the  doctrine  that 
leaves  the  people  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  institutions  for 
themselves,  in  their  own  way,  and  your  party  will  be  united  and  irresistible 
in  power.  Abandon  that  great  principle,  and  the  party  is  not  worth  saving, 
and  can  not  be  saved  after  it  shall  be  violated.  I  trust  we  are  not  to  be 
rushed  upon  this  question.  Why  shall  it  be  done?  Who  is  to  be  benefited? 
Is  the  South  to  be  the  gainer  ?  Is  the  North  to  be  the  gainer  ?  Neither  the 


THE  LECOMPTON  CONTROVERSY.  319 

North  nor  the  South  has  the  right  to  gain  a  sectional  advantage  by  trickery 
or  fraud. 

But  I  am  besought  to  wait  until  I  hear  from  the  election  on  the  21st  of 
December.  I  am  told  that  perhaps  that  will  put  it  all  right,  and  will  save  the 
whole  difficulty.  How  can  it?  Perhaps  there  may  be  a  large  vote.  There 
may  be  a  large  vote  returned.  [Laughter.]  But  I  deny  that  it  is  possible 
to  have  a  fair  vote  on  the  Slavery  clause ;  and  I  say  that  it  is  not  possible  to 
have  any  vote  on  the  Constitution.  Why  wait  for  the  mockery  of  an  elec 
tion,  when  it  is  provided,  unalterably,  that  the  people  can  not  vote — when  the 
majority  are  disfranchised  ? 

But  I  am  told  on  all  sides,  "Oh,  just  wait ;  the  pro-slavery  clause  will  be 
voted  down."  That  does  not  obviate  any  of  my  objections;  it  does  not  di 
minish  any  of  them.  You  have  no  more  right  to  force  a  free-state  Constitu 
tion  on  Kansas  than  a  slave-state  Constitution.  If  Kansas  wrants  a  slave- 
state  Constitution,  she  has  a  right  to  it ;  if  she  wants  a  free-state  Constitu 
tion,  she  has  a  right  to  it.  It  is  none  of  my  business  which  way  the  Slavery 
clause  is  decided.  I  care  not  whether  it  is  voted  down  or  voted  up.  Do 
you  suppose,  after  the  pledges  of  my  honor  that  I  would  go  for  that  princi 
ple,  and  leave  the  people  to  vote  as  they  please,  that  I  would  now  degrade  my 
self  by  voting  one  way  if  the  Slavery  clause  be  voted  down,  and  another  way 
if  it  be  voted  up  ?  I  care  not  how  that  vote  may  stand.  I  take  it  for  grant 
ed  that  it  will  be  voted  out.  I  think  I  have  seen  enough  in  the  last  three 
days  to  make  it  certain  that  it  will  be  returned  out,  no  matter  how  the  vote 
may  stand.  [Laughter.] 

Sir,  I  am  opposed  to  that  concern,  because  it  looks  to  me  like  a  system  of 
trickery  and  jugglery  to  defeat  the  fair  expression  of  the  will  of  the  people. 
There  is  no  necessity  for  crowding  this  measure,  so  unfair,  so  unjust  as  it  is 
in  all  its  aspects,  upon  us.  Why  can  we  not  now  do  what  we  proposed  to  do 
in  the  last  Congress  ?  We  then  voted  through  the  Senate  an  enabling  act, 
called  "the  Toombs  Bill,"  believed  to  be  just  and  fair  in  all  its  provisions, 
pronounced  to  be  almost  perfect  by  the  senator  from  New  Hampshire  [Mr. 
Hale],  only  he  did  not  like  the  man,  then  President  of  the  United  States,  who 
would  have  to  make  the  appointments.  Why  can  we  not  take  that  bill,  and, 
out  of  compliment  to  the  President,  add  to  it  a  clause  taken  from  the  Minne 
sota  Act,  which  he  thinks  should  be  a  general  rule,  requiring  the  Constitution 
to  be  submitted  to  the  people,  and  pass  that  ?  That  unites  the  party.  You 
all  voted  with  me  for  that  bill  .it  the  last  Congress.  Why  not  stand  by  the 
same  bill  now?  Ignore  Lecompton,  ignore  Topeka  ;  treat  both  those  party 
movements  as  irregular  and  void;  pass  a  fair  bill — the  one  that  we  framed 
ourselves  when  we  were  acting  as  a  unit  ;  have  a  fair  election — and  you  will 
have  peace  in  the  Democratic  party,  and  peace  throughout  the  country,  in 
ninety  days.  The  people  want  a  fair  vote.  They  never  will  be  satisfied/with 
out  it.  They  never  should  be  satisfied  without  a  fair  vote  on  their  Constitu 
tion. 

If  the  Toombs  Bill  does  not  suit  my  friends,  take  the  Minnesota  Bill  of  the 
last  session — the  one  so  much  commended  by  the  President  in  his  message  as 
a  model.  Let  us  pass  that  as  an  enabling  act,  and  allow  the  people  of  all  par 
ties  to  come  together  and  have  a  fair  vote,  and  I  will  go  for  it.  Frame  any 
other  bill  that  secures  a  fair,  honest  vote,  to  men  of  all  parties,  and  carries  out 
the  pledge  that  the  people  shall  be  left  free  to  decide  on  their  domestic  insti 
tutions  for  themselves,  and  I  will  go  with  you  with  pleasure,  and  with  all  the 
energy  I  may  possess.  But  if  this  Constitution  is  to  be  forced  down  our 
throats,  in  violation  of  the  fundamental  principle  of  free  government,  under  a 
mode  of  submission  that  is  a  mockery  and  insult,  I  will  resist  it  to  the  last.  I 
have  no  fear  of  any  party  associations  being  severed.  I  should  regret  any  so 
cial  or  political  estrangement,  even  temporarily ;  but  if  it  must  be,  if  I  can 


320  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

not  act  with  you  and  preserve  my  faith  and  my  honor,  I  will  stand  on  the  great 
principle  of  popular  sovereignty,  which  declares  the  right  of  all  people  to  be 
left  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own 
way.  I  will  follow  that  principle  wherever  its  logical  consequences  may  take 
me,  and  I  will  endeavor  to  defend  it  against  assault  from  any  and  all  quar 
ters.  No  mortal  man  shall  be  responsible  for  my  action  but  myself.  By  my 
action  I  will  compromit  no  man. 

The  galleries  as  well  as  the  hall  of  the  Senate  Chamber,  and 
every  approach  to  it,  were  densely  crowded.  When  he  con 
cluded  his  remarks  there  was  an  involuntary  burst  of  applause, 
surpassing  any  thing  that  had  ever  before  violated  the  dignity 
and  decorum  of  that  body.  Some  debate  ensued  as  to  the 
propriety  of  expelling  all  save  the  members  of  the  Senate,  but 
the  matter  eventually  dropped  without  any  such  action. 

Mr.  Bigler  followed  in  a  brief  reply,  and  Mr.  Mason  address 
ed  himself  to  a  single  point.  Mr.  Douglas,  having  responded 
to  Mr.  Mason,  was  about  addressing  himself  to  the  remarks  of 
Mr.  Bigler,  when  a  debate  ensued,  the  importance  of  which 
consists  solely  in  the  refutation  of  a  charge  rather  intimated 
than  preferred  by  the  senator  from  Pennsylvania.  What  was 
said  is  taken  from  the  "  Globe,"  as  follows  : 

Mr.  Douglas.  Yesterday  a  speech  was  read  to  this  body,  showing  that  the 
President  had  held  that  doctrine  twenty  years  ago,  and  he  had  never  dis 
avowed  it  since.  In  that  speech  the  President  declared  that  a  Territorial 
Legislature  had  no  power  to  create  a  convention  to  form  a  Constitution ;  and 
that,  if  they  attempted  to  exercise  such  a  power,  it  would  be  an  act  of  usurp 
ation — a  high  crime — a  crime  subject  to  impeachment.  The  President  has 
held  these  doctrines  for  twenty  years.  He  held  them  at  the  same  time  that 
General  Jackson's  administration  held  them  in  regard  to  the  Arkansas  case. 
The  Democratic  party  has  held  them  ever  since.  I  have  proved  to-day  that 
the  Democratic  party,  so  far  as  it  is  bound  by  our  action  one  year  and  a  half 
ago,  asserted  the  same  doctrine  in  the  Kansas  report  which  I  made  from 
the  Committee  on  Territories.  I  firmly  believed  then  that  that  committee 
was  a  faithful  exponent  of  the  views  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  party.  In  that 
report  we  set  forth  that  doctrine,  and,  as  the  senator  well  knows,  we  pub 
lished  and  circulated  during  the  campaign,  in  order  to  elect  Mr.  Buchanan, 
three  hundred  thousand  copies  of  that  report  as  a  party  document.  I  paid 
for  one  hundred  thousand  copies  of  them  myself.  I  never  heard  it  intimated 
that  the  doctrine  then  expounded,  and  on  which  the  President  was  elected, 
was  repudiated  by  any  portion  of  the  party,  and  therefore  I  said  that  the 
President  of  the  United  States  was  with  me  on  this  question,  so  far  as  his 
record  shows. 

Mr.  Bigler.  I  must  enter  my  protest  and  claim  the  benefit  of  the  statute 
of  limitation,  which  is  applicable  to  a  shorter  period  than  twenty  years.  I 
can  not  consent  that  the  senator  from  Illinois  shall  hold  the  President  to 
principles  which  he  may  have  laid  down  twenty  years  ago,  under  entirely 
different  circumstances  from  those  which  now  exist.  It  is  not  half  so  long 
since  the  President  of  the  United  States  declared  that  the  Missouri  line  would 
b<s  the  best  compromise  of  the  slavery  difficulty  that  could  be  made.  In 
1 848,  the  senator  from  Illinois  advocated  the  extension  of  the  Missouri  line 


THE  LECOMPTON  CONTROVERSY.  321 

to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  yet  he  was  the  man  who  proposed  and  insisted  that  it 
ought  to  be  repealed.  He  was  at  one  time  in  favor  of  extending  it,  and 
therefore  made  his  principle  acceptable  to  him  under  the  circumstances  then 
existing ;  he  was  willing  then  to  take  it.  Now,  would  it  not  be  very  ungen 
erous  in  me  to  hold  to-day  that  the  senator's  argument  was  a  fallacy,  because 
he  at  one  time  advocated  the  extension  of  the  Missouri  line  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  deny  the  right  of  the  senator  from  Pennsylvania  to  inter 
pose  the  statute  of  limitations  upon  this  occasion,  on  the  well-known  prin 
ciple  that  no  one  but  the  authorized  attorney  of  the  party  can  interpose  that 
plea.  [Laughter.]  As  the  senator  has  disavowed  the  authority  to  act  and 
speak  for  the  President,  he  has  no  right  to  file  the  plea.  If  the  President  of 
the  United  States  himself  will  interpose  the  plea,  I  shall  admit  it.  I  believe 
in  a  statute  of  limitations  in  regard  to  political  opinions.  I  need  one  very 
much  myself  on  many  points.  I  am  not  one  of  those  who  boast  that  they 
have  never  changed  an  opinion.  Sir,  it  is  a  matter  of  gratification  to  me 
that  I  feel  each  year  that  I  am  a  little  wiser  than  I  was  the  year  before ;  and 
I  do  not  know  that  a  month  has  ever  passed  over  my  head  in  which  I  have 
not  modified  some  opinion  in  some  degree,  but  I  am  always  frank  enough  to 
avow  it.  Still,  it  is  fair  for  any  man  to  hold  me  to  a  former  opinion  until  I 
have  expressed  a  contrary  one. 

Has  the  President  of  'the  United  States  ever  withdrawn  the  opinion  of 
which  I  have  spoken,  expressed  twenty  years  ago,  in  regard  to  the  power  of 
the  Territorial  Legislature?  I  show  that  the  Democratic  party  stood  by  it 
last  year.  Is  not  that  rather  a  short  period  for  the  application  of  the  statute 
of  limitations  ?  I  hope  you  are  not  going  to  cut  off  the  Cincinnati  Conven 
tion  by  that  statute.  I  deny  your  right  to  plead  the  statute  against  the  Cin 
cinnati  Convention  until  after  the  meeting  of  the  Charleston  Convention. 
The  Cincinnati  platform  is  the  fundamental,  unalterable  law  of  the  Demo 
cratic  party  until  the  meeting  of  the  Charleston  Convention.  Congressmen 
have  no  right  to  change  it.  Senators  have  no  right  to  change  it.  Cabinets 
can  not  alter  it ;  and  the  President,  I  know,  will  not  attempt  to  do  so.  I 
deny  the  senator's  right  to  come  in  with  this  plea  for  the  President,  implying 
thereby  that  he  has  changed  his  opinion,  when  that  same  opinion  was  last 
year  the  doctrine  of  the  Democratic  party,  and  can  not  be  changed  for  four 
years  to  come  by  the  party  organization.  I  am  perfectly  at  home  when  you 
come  to  the  discussion  of  the  question  whether  a  man  is  inside  the  party  or 
not.  I  have  been  in  the  habit  of  discussing  these  platforms  and  helping  to 
make  them.  I  stand  now  where  I  stood  last  year ;  not  because  I  am  unwill 
ing  to  change,  but  because  I  believed  I  was  right  then,  and  I  believe  I  am 
right  now. 

The  senator  from  Pennsylvania  has  told  me  that  I  actually  voted  for  the 
Toombs  Bill  last  year.  That  is  true ;  and,  as  I  said  to-day,  I  am  ready  to 
vote  for  it  again.  He  voted  for  it  last  year,  and  so  did  the  gentlemen  around 
me.  Let  us  vote  for  it  again,  and  have  no  quarrels  among  ourselves.  It 
will  not  do  to  taunt  me  with  having  voted  for  a  measure  last  year  which  I  am 
for  now,  but  which  you  are  not  for. 

Mr.  J3igler.  I  certainly  did  not  present  the  case  in  that  spirit  at  all,  nor 
did  I  look  at  it  in  that  point  of  view.  I  gave  it  no  such  aspect  whatever.  I 
presented  it  in  this  point  of  view :  the  senator,  in  his  speech  to-day,  had  held 
that  it  was  a  great  wrong  upon  the  people  of  Kansas  to  put  a  government  in 
operation  through  the  agency  of  their  Territorial  laws  and  a  Territorial  con 
vention,  the  whole  of  which  had  not  been  submitted  to  their  approbation ; 
and  yet  only  a  short  year  ago  he  voted  for  an  enabling  act  which  put  a  state 
government  into  operation  without  submitting  any  part  of  it  to  the  people. 
That  is  what  I  said. 

Mr.  Douglcts.  My  explanation  of  that  is  to  be  given  in  the  precise  language 

O  2 


322  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

of  the  explanation  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  in  his  message,  in 
which  he  says  that,  in  his  instructions  to  Governor  Walker,  he  took  it  for 
granted  that  the  Constitution  was  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  under  a  law 
that  was  silent  on  the  subject.  The  Toombs  Bill  being  silent,  I  took  it  for 
granted  too,  and  I  supposed  every  other  man  did,  that  it  was  to  be  submitted. 
I  merely  adopted  the  same  process  of  reasoning  that  the  President  himself 
says  he  adopted,  and  which  he  was  amazed  to  find  was  not  carried  out.  If 
the  President  was  right  in  taking  that  for  granted,  I  do  not  know  why  I  was 
not  right  in  taking  the  same  thing  for  granted. 

Again,  I  will  ask  the  senator  to  show  me  an  intimation  from  any  one  mem 
ber  of  the  Senate,  in  the  whole  debate  on  the  Toombs  Bill,  and  in  the  Union 
from  any  quarter,  that  the  Constitution  was  not  to  be  submitted  to  the  peo 
ple.  I  will  venture  to  say,  that  on  all  sides  of  the  chamber  it  wras  so  under 
stood  at  the  time.  If  the  opponents  of  the  bill  had  understood  it  was  not, 
they  would  have  made  the  point  on  it ;  and  if  they  had  made  it,  we  should 
certainly  have  yielded  to  it  and  put  in  the  clause.  That  is  a  discovery  made 
since  the  President  found  out  that  it  was  not  safe  to  take  it  for  granted  that 
that  would  be  done  which  ought  in  fairness  to  have  been  done. 

Mr.  Bigler.  I  do  not  pretend  to  know  any  thing  on  this  subject  which  may 
not  appear  in  the  Journal  of  Debates.  I  shall  not  hold  the  senator  to  any 
thing  that  does  not  appear  there;  but  this  I  will  say,  that  I  was  present  when 
that  subject  was  discussed  by  senators  before  the  bill  was  introduced,  and  the 
question  was  raised  and  discussed  whether  the  Constitution,  when  formed, 
should  be  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  It  was  held  by  those  most  in 
telligent  on  the  subject,  that  in  view  of  all  the  difficulties  surrounding  that 
Territory,  the  danger  of  any  experiment  at  that  time  of  a  popular  vote,  it 
would  be  better  that  there  should  be  no  provision  in  the  Toombs  Bill ;  and 
it  was  my  understanding,  in  all  the  intercourse  I  had,  that  that  convention 
would  make  a  Constitution  and  send  it  here  without  submitting  it  to  the 
popular  vote. 

Mr.  Douglas.  The  senator  says  he  will  not  undertake  to  state  any  thing 
that  did  not  occur  here  in  debate  and  appear  in  the  published  debates,  in 
timating  that  he  has  no  right,  as  an  honorable  man,  to  do  it.  I  will  not  un 
dertake  to  intimate  and  insinuate  that  which,  as  an  honorable  man,  I  am  not 
at  liberty  to  express  in  the  body.  If  he  means  to  insinuate  that  I  was  present 
at  such  a  debate  and  sanctioned  that  doctrine,  let  him  say  so.  If  he  is  not 
willing  to  say  it,  let  him  not  insinuate  that  I  was^  present,  privately  sanction 
ing  a  measure  that  I  now  publicly  am  not  willing  to  avow. 

Mr.  Bigler.  If  I  am  constantly  at  fault  in  matters  of  courtesy,  it  is  painful 
to  me.  I  never  have  so  failed  to  observe  propriety  before.  Perhaps  I  have 
spoken  wrongfully  on  this  subject.  I  have  told  the  senator  from  Illinois  be 
fore  that  I  should  not  in  any  way  attempt  to  reflect  upon  him. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  will  bring  this  to  a  close.  I  will  release  the  senator  from 
all  secrecy,  if  there  is  any,  and  ask  if  he  knows  that,  directly  or  indirectly, 
publicly  or  privately,  any  where  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  I  was  ever  present 
at  such  a  consultation,  where  it  was  called  to  my  attention,  and  I  agreed  to 
pass  it  without  submission  to  the  people  ?  I  now  ask  him  that  question,  with 
all  secrecy  removed. 

Mr.  Bigler.  I  shall  say  distinctly,  what  my  recollection  is  clear  about,  re 
gardless  of  any  consequences.  I  remember  very  well  that  that  question  was 
discussed  in  the  house  of  the  senator.  I  am  not  certain  that  he  participated 
in  that  discussion,  but  I  know  that  I  did.  It  was  urged — I  think  more  es 
pecially  by  the  senator  from  Georgia  [Mr.  Toombs],  not  now  in  his  seat — 
that,  under  all  the  circumstances,  there  ought  not  to  be  a  provision  inserted 
requiring  the  Constitution  to  be  submitted  to  the  people.  I  do  not  say  that 
the  senator  from  Illinois  participated  in  the  discussion.  My  recollection  is 


THE  LECOMPTON  CONTROVEKSY.  323 

not  clear  on  that  point ;  but  it  is  clear  that,  in  an  interview  with  some  three 
or  four  members,  who  were  talking  about  the  introduction  of  that  bill,  that 
subject  was  talked  over.  I  have  said  that  it  was  always  my  understanding 
that  that  convention  would  have  a  right  to  make  a  Constitution,  and  send  it 
here,  without  submitting  it  to  the  people. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  never  have  insisted  that  there  was  a  clause  in  that  bill  ex 
pressly  requiring  the  Constitution  to  be  submitted  to  the  people.  The  point 
I  have  made  was,  that  being  silent,  it  was  understood  as  a  matter  of  course 
that  it  was  to  be  submitted.  Such  a  clause  was  unnecessary.  That  was  the 
President's  construction  of  the  act  of  the  Kansas  Legislature.  That  was  my 
construction  of  the  Toombs  Bill.  That  I  may  have  known  there  was  no  such 
clause  is  unquestionably  true  ;  but  that  I  was  a  party,  either  by  private  con 
ferences  at  my  own  house,  or  otherwise,  to  a  plan  to  force  a  Constitution  on 
the  people  of  Kansas  without  submission,  is  not  true.  That  the  bill  was  silent 
on  the  subject  is  true,  and  my  attention  was  called  to  that  about  the  time  it 
was  passed ;  and  I  took  the  fair  construction  to  be,  that  powers  not  delegated 
were  reserved,  and  that,  of  course,  the  Constitution  would  be  submitted  to 
the  people.  The  point  I  made  on  the  senator  was  that  he  insinuated  that  I 
was  a  party  to  such  an  arrangement  privately,  which  he  was  not  at  liberty  to 
tell,  and  yet  he  insinuated  the  very  fact  that  he,  as  an  honorable  man,  could 
not  tell.  If  a  point  of  honor  has  restrained  him  from  telling  it,  a  point  of 
honor  should  restrain  him  from  insinuating  it. 

Mr.  Bigler.  In  my  anxiety  to  relieve  the  feelings  of  the  senator  from  Illi 
nois,  I  fear  I  may  have  done  injustice  to  myself.  Now,  sir,  I  wish  to  account 
for  the  impression  which  was  on  my  mind,  and  to  make  no  imputation  on 
him.  I  had  called  his  attention  to  the  Toombs  Bill  because  it  was  in  deroga 
tion  of  the  doctrine  he  has  laid  down  here  to-day.  When  he  says  there  was? 
no  sentiment  of  that  kind  declared  in  the  Senate,  I  say  I  hold  that  senator 
only  to  the  record  here — only  to  the  Journal  of  Debates.  What  next,  sir  ? 
I  justified  myself  in  what  I  had  said  by  an  allusion  to  a  discussion  of  that 
precise  question  with  members  of  this  body.  My  purpose  was  to  show  the 
senator  that  I  should  not  have  made  this  allegation  without  some  clear  im 
pression  on  my  mind.  That  impression,  I  tell  the  senator  from  Illinois,  was 
strengthened  by  other  things.  It  was  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  when  he 
made  the  preparatory  bill  for  the  admission  of  Minnesota,  he  provided,  in  ex 
press  words,  that  the  Constitution  should  be  submitted.  If  it  is  an  inference 
irresistible  that  a  Constitution  must  be  submitted  when  the  enabling  act  is 
silent,  why  insert  it  in  the  Minnesota  Bill  ?  •  There  it  is  inserted,  and  I 
thought  it  reasonable — I  always  believed  it — I  believed  it  was  wise  to  put  it 
in  that  shape,  in  view  of  the  surroundings  in  the  Territory  of  Kansas.  I  do 
not  impugn  the  senator's  integrity,  or  his  patriotism,  or  his  high  motive,  or 
his  courage,  or  any  thing  that  pertains  to  him  personally.  He  has  had  no 
more  constant  admirer  than  myself — none  who  has  defended  him  oftener.  I 
thought  I  was  doing  justice  to  myself.  On  account  of  what  I  heard  in  regard 
to  the  Minnesota  Bill,  I  got  the  impression  that  unless  Congress  required  the 
submission  of  the  Constitution  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  that  course  need  not 
be  pursued. 

Mr.  Hale.  I  rise  simply  for  the  purpose  of  making  an  inquiry.  This  mat 
ter  has  been  pretty  tolerably  well  elucidated ;  but  the  honorable  senator  from 
Pennsylvania,  if  I  did  not  misunderstand  him,  said  that,  at  a  private  meeting 
at  the  house  of  the  honorable  senator  from  Illinois,  there  was  a  talk  that, 
owing  to  some  peculiar  circumstances,  it  was  not  prudent  to  submit  the  Con 
stitution  to  the  people  of  Kansas.  I  desire  him  to  state  what  some  of  those 
Peculiar  circumstances  were  which  rendered  it  inexpedient  and  unpatriotic, 
have  not  the  slightest  controversy  with  the  senator  from  Illinois  on  that 
subject. 


324  LITE   OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

Mr.  Bigler.  The  senator  from  New  Hampshire  is  much  more  familiar  with 
the  surroundings  in  Kansas  than  he  affects  to  be  to-day. 

Mr.  Hale.  I  did  not  know  what  you  talked  of  over  there. 

Mr.  Bigler.  I  had  reference  (and  I  think  I  made  that  very  clear)  to  the 
condition  of  the  Territory,  the  bitter  feud  that  divided  the  people  there,  the 
strife  and  violence  that  were  likely  to  interfere  with  a  fair  election.  I  said 
distinctly  that  the  circumstances  rendered  a  fair  exercise  of  the  elective  fran 
chise  exceedingly  difficult.  Who  has  said  more  on  that  point  than  the  sen 
ator  from  New  Hampshire  ?  Who  has  talked  more  about  usurpation  and  vi 
olence  there,  and  keeping  free-state  men  from  the  polls  ?  I  had  the  same 
impressions  then  that  I  have  now.  In  all  the  votes  I  gave  I  was  controlled 
and  impelled  by  nearly  the  same  motive  as  now,  and  that  was  to  get  Kansas 
into  the  Union,  whenever  she  came  up  in  an  allowable  shape,  in  order  to  set 
tle  the  controversy. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  must  ask  the  senator  from  Pennsylvania  whether  he  means 
to  intimate  that  in  my  house,  or  any  other,  these  considerations  were  urged 
why  we  should  pass  the  bill  without  a  provision  to  submit  the  Constitution  to 
the  people  ?  Does  he  mean  to  say  that  I  ever  was,  privately  or  publicly,  in 
my  own  house  or  any  other,  in  favor  of  a  Constitution  without  its  being  sub 
mitted  to  the  people  ? 

Mr.  Bigler.  I  have  made  no  such  allegation. 

Mr.  Douglas.  You  have  allowed  it  to  be  inferred.  I  do  not  want  a  false 
impression  to  be  inferred  because  the  scene  is  located  in  my  private  parlor. 
Of  what  importance  is  it  whether  in  my  house  or  yours,  unless  I  was  a  party 
to  an  agreement  of  that  kind  ?  If  I  was,  let  it  be  said ;  if  I  was  not,  acquit 
me  of  it. 

Mr.  Bigler.  I  stated  that  I  had  no  recollection  of  the  senator  participating 
in  that  conversation. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Well,  if  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  it,  and  was  not  there,  I  do 
not  know  what  my  house  had  to  do  with  it. 

Mr.  Bigler.  What  I  said  was  the  truth,  and  that  is  the  only  defense  I  have 
to  make  before  the  Senate,  and  the  country,  and  my  God. 

Mr.  Douglas's  speech  was  published  very  extensively.  It 
met  a  hearty  response  in  the  Northwest.  An  immense  mass- 
meeting  was  held  in  Chicago  some  ten  days  after,  and  resolu 
tions  of  the  most  unqualified  approbation  of  the  doctrines  of 
the  speech  were  enthusiastically  adopted.  A  resolution  ex 
pressing  the  "  unabated  confidence"  of  the  Democracy  in  Mr. 
Buchanan's  patriotism,  and  that  he  would  administer  the  gov 
ernment  in  accordance  with  the  principles  asserted  in  Mr. 
Douglas's  9th  of  December  speech,  was  also  adopted.  A  mass- 
meeting  was  also  held  at  Janesville,  Wisconsin,  on  the  30th  of 
December,  at  which  several  distinguished  men,  including  the 
Hon.  C.  H.  Larrabee,  now  in  Congress,  took  an  active  part. 
Meetings  were  held  in  almost  all  the  counties  of  the  state,  all 
endorsing  Mr.  Douglas's  course. 

On  the  10th  Mr.  Douglas  gave  notice  of  a  bill  to  authorize 
the  people  of  Kansas  to  form  a  Constitution,  preparatory  to 
their  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  state ;  and  on  the  19th  he 


THE  LECOMPTON  CONTEOVEESY.  325 

introduced  said  bill,  which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Territories. 

On  the  16th,  a  week  after  Mr.  Douglas's  speech  on  Lecomp- 
ton,  Mr.  Allen,  of  Rhode  Island,  proposed  a  list  of  committees 
— agreed  upon  in  Democratic  caucus.  On  this  list  the  Commit 
tee  of  Territories  was  thus  named. 

Douglas  (chairman),  Jones  (Iowa),  Sebastian  (Arkansas), 
Fitzpatrick  (Alabama),  Green  (Missouri),  Collamer  (Vermont), 
Wade  (Ohio).  The  list,  as  proposed,  was  subsequently  adopt 
ed,  every  Democratic  senator  present  having  voted  for  it. 

On  that  same  day  Mr.  Green  replied  to  Mr.  Douglas,  who 
rejoined.  On  the  21st  Mr.  Bigler  made  a  set  speech  in  reply 
to  Mr.  Douglas,  who  rejoined  ;  and  on  the  22d  Mr.  Fitch  made 
a  speech  in  reply  to  Mr.  Douglas,  who  rejoined.  On  the  13th 
of  January  Mr.  Fitch  made  a  personal  explanation  upon  the 
subject  of  the  resolutions  passed  by  the  Indiana  Democratic 
State  Convention  upon  the  subject  of  submitting  Constitutions 
to  the  people  for  approval  or  rejection,  and  Mr.  Douglas  re 
joined.  The  debate  progressed  on  the  motion  to  refer  the 
President's  message. 

On  the  2d  of  February  the  President  transmitted  to  the  Sen 
ate  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  with  a  recommendation  that 
Kansas  be  admitted  as  a  state  under  it ;  and  on  the  motion  to 
refer  the  Constitution  and  the  message  to  the  Committee  on 
Territories,  the  subject  was  debated  day  after  day,  until  the 
8th,  when  the  motion  to  refer  was  agreed  to. 

It  is  not  the  object  or  the  intention  of  the  writer  of  this  book 
to  go  into  the  details  of  the  Lecompton  controversy.  In  an 
other  chapter — that  referring  to  the  election  in  Illinois  in  1858, 
something  will  be  said  of  the  history  and  events  attending  that 
controversy  which  does  not  appear  on  the  Congressional  rec 
ord.  Another  reason  is,  that  the  unfortunate  and  deplorable 
affair  has  long  since  been  consigned  to  a  grave  from  which  it 
is  confidently  hoped  it  may  never  rise  again.  Those  who  cher 
ish  and  preserve  the  animosities  that  sprung  from  it  are  com 
paratively  few  in  number,  and  should  be  left  to  the  task  of 
nourishing  a  hatred  in  which  no  Democrat  has  any  participa 
tion.  If  the  Lecompton  question  had  not  served  them  with  a 
pretext  for  pursuing  Mr.  Douglas,  they  would  doubtless  have 
found  some  other  that  would  have  answered  their  purpose  fully 
as  well.  We  do  not  speak  of  those  who  opposed  Mr.  Douglas 


320  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS. 

or  denounced  his  views  on  Lecompton  because  of  a  difference 
of  opinion  upon  the  question.  Men  who  differ  honestly  upon 
a  question  of  policy  rarely  ever  indulge  in  hatred  toward  those 
who  oppose  them ;  but  the  men  who  adopted  the  policy  of  ad 
mitting  Kansas  under  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  not  because 
they  thought  it  right,  but  because  they  wished,  on  account  of 
personal  griefs,  to  crush  Stephen  A.Douglas,  when  baffled, have 
not  submitted  with  a  good  grace,  nor  do  they  relax  in  their 
bitterness  toward  him.  In  these  feelings  the  Democracy,  as  a 
party,  have  no  share,  and  a  charitable  consideration  for  the 
weaknesses  of  poor  human  nature  suggests  that  the  curtain  be 
dropped  upon  the  sufferings  of  wounded  pride. 

The  admission  of  Kansas  as  a  slave  state,  even  against  the 
ascertained  wishes  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  was  not  asked  for 
by  the  South.  It  was  tendered  to  the  South  by  a  majority 
of  the  Northern  Democrats  in  the  executive  and  legislative 
branches  of  government.  While  those  Northern  Democrats 
who  did  not  approve  of  that  policy  resisted  it,  we  are  not  aware 
that  any  of  them  complained  of  the  South  for  accepting  what 
was  tendered  them  by  the  North.  It  was  thrust  upon  them  by 
the  North,  and  Northern  Democrats  readily  appreciated  the 
responsibility  of  Southern  men  refusing  the  gift.  On  the  Le 
compton  question  the  Democrats  of  Illinois  had  no  reproaches 
or  complaints  against  the  South.  They  deprecated  the  policy 
as  unjust,  as  a  departure  from  w ell-established  principles,  and 
whatever  difficulty  ensued  was  a  difficulty  forced  upon  them, 
not  by  the  South,  but  by  those  Northern  Democrats  who  sup 
ported  Lecompton.  We  propose,  therefore,  to  close  this  branch 
of  Mr.  Douglas's  Congressional  history  by  a  brief  record  of 
what  was  done  in  Congress  upon  the  subject. 

On  the  llth  of  January  the  President  sent  to  Congress  the 
Constitution  of  the  State  of  Minnesota,  which,  on  motion  of 
Mr.  Douglas,  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Territories. 
On  the  26th  he  reported  a  bill  for  the  admission  of  that  state. 

On  the  18th  of  February,  Mr.  Green,  as  the  organ  of  the 
committee,  by  the  direction  of  a  majority  of  its  members,  re 
ported  a  bill  for  the  admission  of  Kansas  into  the  Union.  Mr. 
Douglas  made  a  minority  report  expressive  of  his  views.  An 
additional  report,  containing  an  expression  of  the  views  of 
Messrs.  Collamer  and  Wade,  was  also  made. 

On  the  1st  of  March  the  bill  was  taken  up,  Mr.  Green  enter- 


THE  LECOMPTON  CONTROVERSY.  327 

ing  at  large  into  a  discussion  of  the  measure.  It  was  then  de 
bated  from  day  to  day.  On  the  15th  an  attempt  was  made  to 
force  a  vote,  and  the  session  was  protracted  until  after  six 
o'clock  the  next  morning ;  but  the  Senate  adjourned  without 
any  action  on  the  bill.  The  debate  was  continued  throughout 
that  week. 

On  the  23d  of  March  Mr.  Crittenden  submitted  his  amend 
ment,  subsequently  known  as  the  "  Crittenden  Montgomery" 
amendment.  This  proposition  substantially  provided  that  Kan 
sas  should  be  admitted  as  a  state  into  the  Union  with  the  Le- 
compton  Constitution ;  but,  as  the  fact  whether  the  Constitu 
tion  was  fairly  made  was  disputed,  the  admission  of  the  state 
was  conditional  upon  that  instrument  being  first  submitted  to 
a  vote  of  the  people,  and  assented  to  by  a  majority  of  them. 
In  case  the  Constitution  should  be  approved,  the  President 
was  to  declare  Kansas  a  state  of  the  Union ;  in  case  the  Con 
stitution  was  rejected,  the  bill  authorized  the  people  to  elect 
delegates  to  a  new  convention,  etc.,  etc.  This  amendment  was 
rejected — yeas  24,  nays  34.  After  some  amendments  in  the 
phraseology  of  the  bill,  it  was  read  a  third  time  and  passed. 
The  following  was  the  vote  on  the  passage : 

Yeas — Allen  of  Rhode  Island,  Bayard  of  Delaware,  Benjamin  of  Louisi 
ana,  Biggs  of  North  Carolina,  Bigler  of  Pennsylvania,  Bright  of  Indiana, 
Brown  of  Mississippi,  Clay  of  Alabama,  Evans  of  South  Carolina,  Fitch  of 
Indiana,  Fltzpatrick  of  Alabama,  Green  of  Missouri,  Gwin  of  California, 
Hammond  of  South  Carolina,  Henderson  of  Texas,  Houston  of  Texas,  Hunt 
er  of  Virginia,  Iverson  of  Georgia,  Johnson  of  Arkansas,  Johnson  of  Tennes 
see,  Jones  of  Iowa,  Kennedy  of  Maryland,  Mallory  of  Florida,  Mason  of  Vir 
ginia,  Pearce  of  Maryland,  Polk  of  Missouri,  Sebastian  of  Arkansas,  Slidell 
of  Louisiana,  Thompson  of  Kentucky,  Thomson  of  New  Jersey,  Toombs  of 
Georgia,  Wright  of  New  Jersey,  Yulee  of  Florida — 33. 

Nays — Bell  of  Tennessee,  Broderick  of  California,  Chandler  of  Michigan, 
Clark  of  New  Hampshire,  Collamer  of  Vermont,  Crittenden  of  Kentucky, 
Dixon  of  Connecticut,  Doolittlc  of  "Wisconsin,  Douglas  of  Illinois,  Durkee 
of  Wisconsin,  Fessenden  of  Maine,  Foot  of  Vermont,  Foster  of  Connecticut, 
Hale  of  New  Hampshire,  Hamlin  of  Maine,  Harlan  of  Iowa,  King  of  New 
York,  Pugh  of  Ohio,  Seward  of  New  York,  Simmons  of  Rhode  Island,  Stu 
art  of  Michigan,  Sumner  of  Massachusetts,  Trumbull  of  Illinois,  Wade  of 
Ohio,  Wilson  of  Massachusetts — 25. 

The  whole  number  of  senators  was  62.  Of  these,  58  voted 
as  above.  Mr.  Cameron,  of  Pennsylvania,  had  paired  off  with 
Mr.  Davis,  of  Mississippi.  Mr.  Bates,  of  Delaware,  and  Mr. 
Reid,  of  North  Carolina,  were  both  detained  from  the  Senate 
by  illness. 

Mr.  Douglas  had  been  for  some  ten  days  or  more  confined 


328  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

to  his  house  and  to  his  bed  by  severe  illness.  It  was  under 
stood  that,  as  the  vote  would  take  place  on  Monday  or  Tues 
day,  he  would  address  the  Senate  upon  the  bill. 

On  Monday,  March  22d,  the  Senate  met  at  ten  o'clock. 
From  an  early  hour  the  galleries  and  every  part  of  the  hall 
had  been  crowded.  During  the  forenoon,  the  antechamber,  as 
well  as  the  passages  leading  to  the  Senate  or  north  wing  of  the 
Capitol,  had  been  thronged.  The  Kansas  Bill  having  been  taken 
up,  Mr.  Stuart,  of  Michigan,  addressed  the  Senate  for  three 
hours ;  Mr.  Bayard,  of  Delaware,  followed ;  and  Mr.  Broderick, 
of  California,  continued  the  debate  until  the  hour  for  taking  a 
recess.  Mr.  Green  then  stated  that  Mr.  Douglas  would  speak 
at  night,  and  that  no  vote  would  be  taken  till  next  day.  The 
Senate  then  adjourned  till  7  P.M.  During  the  recess  of  three 
hours  the  crowd  held  possession  of  the  galleries ;  many  of  the 
ladies  present  had  been  there  during  the  entire  day.  ISTo  one 
wTho  had  a  seat  or  even  standing-room  moved,  because  to  do 
so  was  to  lose  the  opportunity  so  earnestly  sought  to  hear  Mr. 
Douglas.  The  Senate  reassembled  at  7  o'clock.  At  that  time 
it  was  impossible  to  approach  the  entrances  to  the  Senate. 
When  Mr.  Douglas  entered  the  chamber  he  was  greeted  with 
a  burst  of  applause  from  the  crowded  auditory. 

Mr.  Gwin  at  once  rose  and  moved  that  ladies  be  admitted  to 
the  floor  of  the  Senate,  and,  no  objection  being  made,  the  mo 
tion  was  agreed  to.  Ladies  then  entered  the  hall,  and  occu 
pied  such  positions,  standing  or  sitting,  as  they  could  attain. 
The  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives  were  present  in 
large  numbers,  and  filled  the  aisles.  Thus  the  chamber  was 
filled  to  its  utmost  capacity.  The  pressure  in  the  galleries  and 
upon  the  stairs  was  very  great,  leading  several  times  to  great 
confusion. 

Mr.  Douglas  then  addressed  the  Senate  as  follows : 

Mr.  President, — I  know  not  that  my  strength  is  sufficient  to  enable  me  to 
present  to-night  the  views  which  I  should  like  to  submit  upon  the  question 
now  under  consideration.  My  sickness  for  the  last  two  weeks  has  deprived 
me  of  the  pleasure  of  listening  to  the  debates,  and  of  an  opportunity  of  read 
ing  the  speeches  that  have  been  made  ;  hence  I  shall  not  be  able  to  perform 
the  duty  which  might  naturally  have  been  expected  of  me,  of  replying  to  any 
criticisms  that  may  have  been  presented  upon  my  course,  or  upon  my  speech 
es,  or  upon  my  report.  I  must  content  myself  with  presenting  my  views 
upon  the  questions  that  are  naturally  brought  up  by  the  bill  under  consider 
ation.  I  trust,  however,  that  I  may  be  pardoned  for  referring  briefly,  in  the 
first  instance,  to  my  course  upon  the  Slavery  question  during  the  period  that 
I  have  had  a  seat  in  the  two  houses  of  Congress. 


THE  LECOMPTON  CONTROVERSY.  329 

"When  I  entered  Congress  in  1843,  I  found  upon  the  statute-book  the  evi 
dence  of  a  policy  to  adjust  the  Slavery  question  and  avoid  sectional  agitation 
by  a  geographical  line  drawn  across  the  continent,  separating  free  territory 
from  slave  territory.  That  policy  had  its  origin  at  the  beginning  of  this  gov 
ernment,  and  had  prevailed  up  to  that  time.  In  1787,  while  the  convention 
was  in  session  forming  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  the  Congress 
of  the  Confederation  adopted  the  ordinance  of  1787,  prohibiting  slavery  in 
all  the  territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio  River.  The  first  Congress  that  as 
sembled  under  the  Constitution  extended  all  the  provisions  of  that  ordinance, 
with  the  exception  of  the  clause  prohibiting  slavery,  to  the  territory  south  of 
that  river,  thus  making  the  Ohio  River  the  dividing  line  between  free  terri 
tory  and  slave  territory,  free  labor  and  slave  labor. 

Subsequently,  after  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana,  when  Missouri,  a  portion 
of  that  territory,  applied  for  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  state,  the  same 
policy  was  carried  out  by  adopting  the  parallel  of  36°  30'  north  latitude, 
from  the  western  border  of  Missouri,  as  far  westward  as  our  territory  then 
extended,  as  the  barrier  between  free  territory  upon  the  one  side  and  slave 
territory  upon  the  other. 

Thus  the  question  stood  when  I  first  entered  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States.  I  examined  the  question  when  the  proposition  was  made  for  the  an 
nexation  of  Texas  in  1845,  and,  though  I  was  unable  to  vindicate  the  policy 
of  a  geographical  line  upon  sound  political  principles,  still,  finding  that  it 
had  been  in  existence  from  the  beginning  of  the  government,  had  been  ac 
quiesced  in  up  to  that  time  by  the  North  and  by  the  South,  and  that  it  had 
its  origin  in  patriotic  motives,  I  was  anxious  to  abide  by  and  perpetuate  that 
policy  rather  than  open  the  slavery  agitation,  and  create  sectional  strife  and 
heart-burning  by  attempting  to  restore  the  government  to  those  great  prin 
ciples  which  seemed  to  me  to  be  more  consistent  Avith  the  right  of  self-gov 
ernment,  upon  which  our  institutions  rest.  For  this  reason  I  cordially  ac- 
quiescjd,  in  1845,  in  the  insertion  into  the  resolutions  for  the  annexation  of 
Texas  of  a  clause  extending  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  through  the  Re- 
publij  of  Texas  so  far  westward  as  the  new  acquisition  might  reach.  I  not 
only  acquiesced  in  and  supported  the  measure  then,  but  I  did  it  with  the 
avowed  purpose  of  continuing  that  line  to  the  Pacific  Ocean  so  soon  as  we 
should  acquire  the  territory.  Accordingly,  in  1848,  when  we  had  acquired 
New  Mexico,  Utah,  and  California  from  the  Republic  of  Mexico,  and  the 
question  arose  in  this  body  in  regard  to  the  kind  of  government  which  should 
be  established  therein,  the  Senate,  on  my  motion,  adopted  a  proposition  to 
extend  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  with  the  same 
understanding  with  which  it  was  originally  adopted.  The  Journal  of  tho 
Senate  contains  the  following  entry  of  that  proposition : 

"On  motion  of  Mr.  Douglas  to  amend  the  bill,  section  fourteen,  line  one, 
by  inserting  after  the  word  '  enacted  :'  '  That  the  line  of  36°  30'  of  north  lat 
itude,  known  as  the  Missouri  Compromise  line,  as  defined  by  the  eighth  sec-f 
tion  of  an  act  entitled  "  An  Act  to  authorize  the  People  of  the  Missouri  Ter 
ritory  to  form  a  Constitution  and  State  Government,  and  for  the  Admission 
of  said  State  into  the  Union  on  an  equality  with  the  original  States,  and  to 
prohibit  Slavery  in  certain  Territories,"  approved  March  6,  1820,  be,  and  the 
same  is  hereby  declared  to  extend  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  the  said  eighth 
section,  together  with  the  compromise  therein  effected,  is  hereby  revived,  and 
declared  to  be  in  full  force  and  binding  for  the  future  organization  of  the 
Territories  of  the  United  States,  in  the  same  sense  and  with  the  same  under 
standing  with  which  it  was  originally  adopted.' 

"It  was  determined  in  the  affirmative — yeas  32,  nays  21. 

"On  motion  of  Mr.  Baldwin,  the  yeas  and  nays  being  desired  by  one  fifth 
of  the  senators  present, 


330  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

"Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  are  Messrs.  Atchison,  Badger,  Bell, 
Benton,  Berrien,  Borland,  Bright,  Butler,  Calhoun,  Cameron,  Davis  of  Mis 
sissippi,  Dickinson,  Douglas,  Downs,  Fitzgerald,  Foote,  Hannegan,  Houston, 
Hunter,  Johnson  of  Maryland,  Johnson  of  Louisiana,  Johnson  of  Georgia, 
King,  Lewis,  Mangum,  Mason,  Metcalfe,  Pearce,  Sebastian,  Spruance,  Stur 
geon,  Turney,  and  Underwood. 

"Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  are  Messrs.  Allen,  Atherton,  Baldwin, 
Bradbury,  Breese,  Clarke,  Corwin,  Davis  of  Massachusetts,  Dayton,  Dix, 
Dodge,  Felch,  Green,  Hale,  Hamlin,  Miller,  Niles,  Phelps,  Upham,  Walker, 
and  Webster. 

"So  the  proposed  amendment  was  agreed  to." 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  proposition  offered  by  me  to  extend  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise  line  to  the  Pacific  Ocean  in  the  same  sense  and  with  the 
same  understanding  with  which  it  was  originally  adopted,  was  agreed  to  by 
the  Senate  by  a  majority  of  twelve.  When  the  bill  was  sent  to  the  House  of 
Representatives,  that  provision  was  stricken  out,  I  think,  by  thirty-nine  ma 
jority.  By  that  vote  the  policy  of  separating  free  territory  from  slave  terri 
tory  by  a  geographical  line  was  abandoned  by  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States.  It  is  not  my  purpose  on  this  occasion  to  inquire  whether  the  policy 
was  right  or  wrong ;  whether  its  abandonment  at  that  time  was  wise  or  un 
wise  ;  that  is  a  question  long  since  consigned  to  history,  and  I  leave  it  to  that 
tribunal  to  determine.  I  only  refer  to  it  now  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the 
view  which  I  then  took  of  the  question.  It  will  be  seen,  by  reference  to  the 
votes  in  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,  that  Southern  men  in  a 
body  voted  for  the  extension  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  line,  and  a  very 
large  majority  of  the  Northern  men  voted  against  it.  The  argument  then 
made  against  the  policy  of  a  geographical  line  was  one  which  upon  principle 
it  was  difficult  to  answer.  It  was  urged  that  if  slavery  was  wrong  north  of 
the  line,  it  could  not  be  right  south  of  the  line  ;  that  if  it  was  unwise,  impol 
itic,  and  injurious  on  the  one  side,  it  could  not  be  wise,  politic,  and  judicious 
upon  the  other ;  that  if  the  people  should  be  left  to  decide  the  question  for 
themselves  on  the  one  side,  they  should ^e  entitled  to  the  same  privilege  on 
the  other.  I  thought  these  arguments  were  difficult  to  answer  upon  princi 
ple.  The  only  answer  urged  was,  that  the  policy  had  its  origin  in  patriotic 
motives,  in  fraternal  feeling,  in  that  brotherly  affection  which  ought  to  ani 
mate  all  the  citizens  of  a  common  country ;  and  that,  for  the  sake  of  peace, 
and  harmony,  and  concord,  we  ought  to  adhere  to  and  preserve  that  policy. 
Under  these  considerations,  I  not  only  voted  for  it,  but  moved  it,  and  la 
mented  as  much  as  any  man  in  the  country  its  failure,  because  that  failure 
precipitated  us  into  a  sectional  strife  and  agitation,  the  like  of  which  had 
never  before  been  witnessed  in  the  United  States,  and  which  alarmed  the 
wisest,  the  purest,  and  the  best  patriots  in  the  land  for  the  safety  of  the  re 
public. 

You  all  recollect  the  agitation  which  raged  through  this  land  from  1848 
to  1 850,  and  which  was  only  quieted  by  the  compromise  measures  of  the  lat 
ter  year.  You  all  remember  how  the  venerable  sage  and  patriot  of  Ashland 
was  called  forth  from  his  retirement  for  the  sole  purpose  of  being  able  to 
contribute,  by  his  wisdom,  by  his  patriotism,  by  his  experience,  by  the  weight 
of  his  authority,  something  to  calm  the  troubled  waters  and  restore  peace 
and  harmony  to  a  distracted  country.  That  contest  waged  fiercely,  almost 
savagely,  threatening  the  peace  and  existence  of  the  Union,  until  at  last,  by 
the  wise  counsels  of  a  Clay,  a  Webster,  and  a  Cass,  and  the  other  leading 
spirits  of  the  countiy,  a  new  plan  of  conciliation  and  settlement  was  agreed 
upon,  which  again  restored  peace  to  the  Union.  The  policy  of  a  geographi 
cal  line  separating  free  territory  from  slave  territory  was  abandoned  by  its 
friends  only  because  they  found  themselves  without  the  power  to  adhere  to 


THE  LECOMPTON  CONTROVERSY.  331 

it,  and  carry  it  into  effect  in  good  faith.  If  that  policy  had  been  continued, 
if  the  Missouri  line  had  been  extended  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  there  would  have 
been  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation  forever — for  on  one  side,  as  far  west  as 
the  Continent  extended,  slavery  would  have  been  prohibited,  while  on  the 
other,  by  legal  implication,  it  would  have  been  taken  for  granted  that  the  in 
stitution  of  slavery  would  have  existed  and  continued,  and  emigration  would 
have  sought  the  one  side  of  the  line  or  the  other,  as  it  preferred  the  one  or 
the  other  class  of  domestic  and  social  institutions.  I  confess,  sir,  that  it  was 
my  opinion  then,  and  is  my  opinion  now,  that  the  extension  of  that  line  would 
have  been  favorable  to  the  South,  so  far  as  any  sectional  advantage  would 
have  been  obtained,  if  it  be  an  advantage  to  any  section  to  extend  its  peculiar 
institutions.  Southern  men  seemed  so  to  consider  it,  for  they  voted  almost 
unanimously  in  favor  of  that  policy  prohibiting  slavery  on  one  side,  contented 
with  a  silent  implication  in  its  favor  on  the  other.  Northern  representatives 
and  senators  seemed  to  take  the  same  view  of  the  subject,  for  a  large  majority 
of  them  voted  against  this  geographical  policy,  and  in  lieu  of  it  insisted  upon 
a  law  prohibiting  slavery  every  where  within  the  Territories  of  the  United 
States,  north  as  well  as  south  of  the  line ;  and  not  only  in  the  Territories, 
but  in  the  dock-yards,  the  navy-yards,  and  all  other  public  places  over  which 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  had  exclusive  jurisdiction. 

Such,  sir,  was  the  state  of  public  opinion,  as  evidenced  by  the  acts  of  rep 
resentatives  and  senators  on  the  question  of  a  geographical  line  by  the  ex 
tension  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  as  it  is  called,  from  1848  to  1850,  which 
caused  it  to  be  abandoned,  and  the  compromise  measures  of  1850  to  be  sub 
stituted  in  its  place.  Those  measures  are  familiar  to  the  Senate  and  to  the 
country.  They  are  predicated  upon  the  abandonment  of  a  geographical  line, 
and  upon  the  great  principle  of  self-government  in  the  Territories,  and  the 
sovereignty  of  the  states  over  the  question  of  slavery,  as  well  as  over  all 
other  matters  of  local  and  domestic  concern.  Inasmuch  as  the  time-honored 
and  venerated  policy  of  a  geographical  line  had  been  abandoned,  the  great 
leaders  of  the  Senate,  and  the  great  commoners  in  the  other  House  of  Con 
gress,  saw  no  other  remedy  but  to  return  to  the  true  principles  of  the  Consti 
tution — to  those  great  principles  of  self-government  and  popular  sovereignty 
upon  which  all  free  institutions  rest,  and  to  leave  the  people  of  the  Territo 
ries  and  of  the  states  free  to  decide  the  Slavery  question,  as  well  as  all  other 
questions,  for  themselves. 

Mr.  President,  I  am  one  of  those  who  concurred  cheerfully  and  heartily  in 
this  new  line  of  policy  marked  out  by  the  compromise  measures  of  1850. 
Having  been  compelled  to  abandon  the  former  policy  of  a  geographical  line, 
for  want  of  ability  to  carry  it  out,  I  joined  with  the  great  patriots  to  whom  I 
have  alluded  to  calm  and  quiet  the  country  by  the  adoption  of  a  policy  more 
congenial  to  my  views  of  free  institutions,  not  only  for  the  purpose  of  healing 
and  harmonizing  the  strife  and  controversy  which  then  existed,  but  for  the 
farther  purpose  of  providing  a  rule  of  action  in  all  time  to  come  which  would 
avoid  sectional  strife  and  sectional  controversy  in  the  future.  It  was  one  of 
the  great  merits  of  the  compromise  measures  of  1850 — indeed,  it  was  their 
chief  merit — that  they  furnished  a  principle,  a  rule  of  action  which  should 
apply  every  where — north  and  south  of  36°  30' — not  only  to  the  territory 
which  we  then  had,  but  to  all  that  we  might  afterward  acquire,  and  thus,  if 
that  principle  was  adhered  to,  prevent  any  strife,  any  controversy,  any  sec 
tional  agitation  in  the  future.  The  object  was  to  localize,  not  to  nationalize, 
the  controversy  in  regard  to  slavery ;  to  make  it  a  question  for  each  state  and 
each  Territory  to  decide  for  itself,  without  any  other  state,  or  any  other  Ter 
ritory,  or  the  federal  government,  or  any  outside  power  interfering,  directly 
or  indirectly,  to  influence  or  control  the  result. 

My  course  upon  those  measures  created  at  first  great  excitement,  and  I 


332  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

may  say  great  indignation,  at  my  own  home,  so  that  it  became  necessary  for 
me*  to  go  before  the  people  and  vindicate  my  action,  i  made  a  speech  at 
Chicago  upon  my  return  home,  in  which  I  stated  the  principles  of  the  com 
promise  measures  of  1850  as  I  have  now  stated  them  here,  and  vindicated 
them  to  the  best  of  my  ability.  It  is  enough  to  say  that,  upon  sober  reflec 
tion,  the  people  of  Illinois  approved  the  course  which  I  then  pursued ;  and 
when  the  Legislature  came  together,  they  passed,  with  great  unanimity,  res 
olutions  endorsing  emphatically  the  principle  of  those  measures. 

In  1854,  when  it  became  necessary  to  organize  the  Territories  of  Kansas 
and  Nebraska,  the  question  arose,  What  principle  was  to  apply  to  those  Ter 
ritories  ?  It  was  true  they  both  lay  north  of  the  line  of  36°  30' ;  but  it  was 
also  true  that,  four  years  before,  the  policy  of  a  geographical  line  had  been 
abandoned  and  repudiated  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and  in  lieu 
of  it  the  plan  of  leaving  each  Territory  free  to  decide  the  question  for  itself  had 
been  adopted.  I  felt  it  to  be  my  duty,  as  a  senator  from  the  State  of  Illinois, 
and  I  will  say  as  a  member  of  the  Democratic  party,  to  adhere  in  good  faith 
to  the  principles  of  the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  and  to  apply  them  to 
Kansas  and  Nebraska,  as  well  as  to  the  other  Territories.  To  show  that  I 
was  bound  to  pursue  this  course,  it  is  only  necessary  to  refer  to  the  public  in 
cidents  of  those  times.  In  the  presidential  election  of  1852,  the  great  polit 
ical  parties  of  that  day  each  nominated  its  candidate  for  the  presidency  upon 
a  platform  which  endorsed  the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  and  both 
pledged  themselves  to  carry  them  out  in  good  faith  in  all  future  times  in  the 
organization  of  all  new  Territories.  The  Whig  party  adopted  that  platform 
at  Baltimore,  and  placed  General  Scott,  their  candidate,  upon  it.  The  Dem 
ocratic  party  adopted  a  platform  identical  in  principles,  so  far  as  this  ques 
tion  was  concerned,  and  elected  General  Pierce  President  of  the  United 
States  upon  it.  Thus  the  Whig  party  and  the  Democratic  party  each  stood 
pledged  to  apply  this  principle  in  the  organization  of  all  new  Territories. 
Not  only  was  I  as  a  Democrat — as  a  senator  who  voted  for  their  adoption — 
bound  to  apply  their  principle  to  this  case,  but,  as  a  senator  from  Illinois,  I 
was  under  an  imperative  obligation,  if  I  desired  to  obey  the  will  and  carry 
out  the  wishes  of  my  constituents,  to  apply  the  same  principle.  To  show  the 
views  of  my  Legislature  upon  that  subject,  I  will  read  one  resolution,  which 
was  passed  at  the  session  of  1851 : 

"Resolved,  That  our  liberty  and  independence  are  based  upon  the  right  of 
the  people  to  form  for  themselves  such  a  government  as  they  may  choose ; 
that  this  great  privilege,  the  birthright  of  freemen,  the  gift  of  Heaven,  se 
cured  to  us  by  the  blood  of  our  ancestors,  ought  to  be  extended  to  future 
generations ;  and  that  no  limitation  ought  to  be  applied  to  this  power  in  the 
organization  of  any  Territory  of  the  United  States,  of  either  a  Territorial 
government  or  a  state  Constitution :  Provided,  The  government  so  establish 
ed  shall  be  republican,  and  in  conformity  with  the  Constitution." 

That  resolution  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  sixty-one  in  the  affirmative  and 
only  four  in  the  negative.  I  undertake  to  say  that  resolution  spoke  the  sen 
timents  of  the  people  of  Illinois ;  and  I,  as  their  senator,  was  only  carrying 
out  their  sentiments  and  wishes  by  applying  this  principle  to  the  Territories 
of  Kansas  and  Nebraska.  This  principle  was  applied  in  that  bill  in  the  pre 
cise  language  of  the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  except  the  addition  of  a 
clause  removing  from  the  statute-book  the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  Act, 
as  being  inconsistent  with  that  principle,  and  declaring  that  it  was  the  true 
intent  and  meaning  of  the  act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  Territory  or 
state,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly 
free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  sub 
ject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Now,  sir,  the  question  arises  whether  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  which 


THE  LECOMPTON  CONTROVERSY.  333 

has  been  presented  here  for  our  acceptance,  is  in  accordance  with  this  prin 
ciple  embodied  in  the  compromise  measures,  and  clearly  defined  in  the  or 
ganic  act  of  Kansas.  Have  the  people  of  Kansas  been  left  perfectly  free  to 
form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only 
to  the  Constitution  ?  Is  the  Lecompton  Constitution  the  act  and  deed  of  the 
people  of  Kansas  ?  Does  it  embody  their  will  ?  If  not,  you  have  no  consti 
tutional  right  to  impose  it  upon  them.  If  it  does  embody  their  will,  if  it  is 
their  act  and  deed,  you  have,  then,  a  right  to  waive  any  irregularities  that 
may  have  occurred,  and  receive  the  state  into  the  Union.  This  is  the  main 
point,  in  my  estimation,  upon  which  the  vote  of  the  Senate  and  the  House 
of  Representatives  ought  to  depend  in  the  decision  of  the  Kansas  question. 
Now,  is  there  a  man  within  the  hearing  of  my  voice  who  believes  that  the 
Lecompton  Constitution  does  embody  the  will  of  a  majority  of  the  lonafide 
inhabitants  of  Kansas  ?  Where  is  the  evidence  that  it  does  embody  that 
will? 

We  are  told  that  it  was  made  by  a  convention  assembled  at  Lecompton  in 
September  last,  and  has  been  submitted  to  the  people  for  ratification  or  re 
jection.  How  submitted?  In  a  manner  that  allowed  every  man  to  vote  for 
it,  but  precluded  the  possibility  of  any  man  voting  against  it.  We  are  told 
that  there  is  a  majority  of  about  five  thousand  five  hundred  votes  recorded  in 
its  favor  under  these  circumstances.  I  refrain  from  going  into  the  evidence 
which  has  been  taken  before  the  commission  recently  held  in  Kansas  to  show 
what  proportion  of  these  votes  were  fraudulent ;  but,  supposing  them  all  to 
have  been  legal,  bonajide  residents,  what  does  that  fact  prove,  when  the  peo 
ple  on  that  occasion  were  allowed  only  to  vote  for,  and  could  not  vote  against, 
the  Constitution  ?  On  the  other  hand,  we  have  a  vote  of  the  people  in  pur 
suance  of  law,  on  the  4th  of  January  last,  when  this  Constitution  was  sub 
mitted  by  the  Legislature  to  the  people  for  acceptance  or  rejection,  showing 
a  majority  of  more  than  ten  thousand  against  it.  If  you  grant  that  both 
these  elections  were  valid,  if  you  grant  that  the  votes  were  legal  and  fair,  yet 
the  majority  is  about  two  to  one  against  this  Constitution.  Here  is  evidence 
to  my  mind  conclusive  that  this  Lecompton  Constitution  is  not  the  embodi 
ment  of  the  popular  will  of  Kansas.  How  is  this  evidence  to  be  rebutted  ? 
By  the  assumption  that  the  election  on  the  21st  of  December,  where  the 
voters  were  allowed  to  vote  for  it,  but  not  against  it,  was  a  legal  election ; 
and  that  the  election  of  the  4th  of  January,  where  the  people  were  allowed 
to  vote  for  or  against  the  Constitution  as  they  chose,  was  not  a  legal  and 
valid  election. 

Sir,  where  do  you  find  your  evidence  of  the  legality  of  the  election  of  the 
21st  of  December?  Under  what  law  was  that  election  held?  Under  no 
law  except  the  decree  of  the  Lecompton  Convention.  Did  that  convention 
possess  legislative  power  ?  Did  it  possess  any  authority  to  prescribe  an  elec 
tion  law?  That  convention  possessed  only  such  power  as  it  derived  from 
the  Territorial  Legislature  in  the  act  authorizing  the  assembling  of  the  con 
vention;  and  I  submit  that  the  same  authority,  the  same  power,  existed  in 
the  Territorial  Legislature  to  order  an  election  on  the  4th  of  January  as 
existed  in  the  convention  to  order  one  on  the  21st  of  December.  The  Legis 
lature  had  the  same  power  over  the  whole  subject  on  the  17th  of  December, 
when  it  passed  a  law  for  the  submission  of  the  Constitution  to  the  people, 
that  it  had  on  the  19th  of  February,  when  it  enacted  the  statute  for  the  as 
sembling  of  the  convention. 

The  convention  assembled  under  the  authority  of  the  Territorial  Legisla 
ture  alone,  and  hence  was  bound  to  conduct  all  its  proceedings  in  conformity 
with,  and  in  subordination  to,  the  authority  of  the  Legislature.  The  mo 
ment  the  convention  attempted  to  put  its  Constitution  into  operation  against 
the  authority  of  the  Territorial  Legislature,  it  committed  an  act  of  rebellion 


334  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS. 

against  the  government  of  the  United  States.  But  we  are  told  by  the  Presi 
dent  that  at  the  time  the  Territorial  Legislature  passed  the  law  submitting 
the  whole  Constitution  to  the  people,  the  Territory  had  been  prepared  for 
admission  into  the  Union  as  a  state.  How  prepared  ?  By  what  authority 
prepared  ?  Not  by  the  authority  of  any  act  of  Congress — by  no  other  au 
thority  than  that  of  the  Territorial  Legislature ;  and  clearly  a  convention 
assembled  under  that  authority  could  do  no  act  to  subvert 'the  Territorial 
Legislature  which  brought  the  convention  into  existence. 

But  gentlemen  assume  that  the  organic  act  of  the  Territory  was  an  ena 
bling  act ;  that  it  delegated  to  the  Legislature  all  the  power  that  Congress  had 
to  authorize  the  assembling  of  a  convention.  Although  I  dissent  from  this 
doctrine,  I  am  willing,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  to  assume  it  to  be  cor 
rect  ;  and  if  it  be  correct,  to  what  conclusion  does  it  lead  us  ?  It  only  sub 
stitutes  the  Territorial  Legislature  for  the  authority  of  Congress,  and  gives 
validity  to  the  convention  ;  and  therefore  the  Legislature  would  have  just 
the  same  right  that  Congress  otherwise  would  have  had,  and  no  more,  and 
no  less.  Suppose,  now,  that  Congress  had  passed  an  enabling  act,  and  a 
convention  had  been  called,  and  a  Constitution  framed  under  it ;  but  three 
days  before  that  Constitution  was  to  take  effect,  Congress  should  pass  anoth 
er  act  repealing  the  convention  law,  and  submitting  the  Constitution  to  the 
vote  of  the  people :  would  it  be  denied  that  the  act  of  Congress  submitting 
the  Constitution  would  be  a  valid  act  ?  If  Congress  would  have  authority 
thus  to  interpose,  and  submit  the  Constitution  to  the  vote  of  the  people,  it 
clearly  follows  that  if  the  Legislature  stood  in  the  place  of  Congress,  and  was 
vested  with  the  power  which  Congress  had  on  the  subject,  it  had  the  same 
right  to  interpose,  and  submit  this  Constitution  to  the  people  for  ratification 
or  rejection. 

Therefore,  sir,  if  you  judge  this  Constitution  by  the  technical  rules  of  law, 
it  was  voted  down  by  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  and 
it  became  null  and  void  ;  and  you  are  called  upon  now  to  give  vitality  to  a 
void,  rejected,  repudiated  Constitution.  If,  however,  you  set  aside  the  tech 
nicalities  of  law,  and  approach  it  in  the  spirit  of  statesmanship,  in  the  spirit 
of  justice  and  of  fairness,  with  an  eye  single  to  ascertain  what  is  the  wish  and 
the  will  of  that  people,  you  are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Lecompton 
Constitution  does  not  embody  that  will. 

Sir,  we  have  heard  the  argument  over  and  over  again  that  the  Lecompton 
Convention  were  justified  in  withholding  this  Constitution  from  submission  to 
the  people,  for  the  reason  that  it  would  have  been  voted  down  if  it  had  been 
submitted  to  the  people  for  ratification  or  rejection.  We  are  told  that  there 
was  a  large  majority  of  free-state  men  in  the  Territory,  who  would  have  voted 
down  the  Constitution  if  they  had  got  a  chance,  and  that  is  the  excuse  for 
not  allowing  the  people  to  vote  upon  it.  That  is  an  admission  that  this  Con 
stitution  is  not  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas ;  that  it  does  not 
embody  their  will ;  and  yet  you  are  called  upon  to  give  it  force  and  vitality  ; 
to  make  it  the  fundamental  law  of  Kansas  with  a  knowledge  that  it  is  not 
the  will  of  the  people,  and  misrepresents  their  wishes.  I  ask  you,  sir,  where 
is  your  right,  under  our  principles  of  government,  to  force  a  Constitution 
upon  an  unwilling  people  ?  You  may  resort  to  all  the  evidence  that  you  can 
obtain,  from  every  source  that  you  please,  and  you  are  driven  to  the  same 
conclusion.  (The  confusion  created  by  the  large  number  of  persons  in  the 
galleries  endeavoring  to  find  places  where  they  could  see  and  hear,  and  oth 
ers  pressing  in,  was  so  great  that  the  honorable  senator  could  hardly  make 
himself  heard.) 

Mr.  Stuart.  I  am  aware  of  the  very  great  difficulty  of  preserving  order ; 
but  still  I  think  that,  by  a  suggestion  from  the  chair,  gentlemen  in  the  gal 
leries  and  about  the  lobbies  would  do  it.  They  can  do  it  if  they  will.  The 


THE  LECOMPTOX  CONTROVERSY.  335 

honorable  senator  from  Illinois  speaks  with  difficulty,  at  any  rate,  and  I  hope 
there  will  be  sufficient  order  preserved  that  he  may  be  heard. 
-  The  Vice-President.  The  chair  has  observed  a  good  deal  of  disorder  about 
the  central  door  of  the  main  gallery.  It  is  quite  obvious  that  there  are  as 
many  persons  there  as  can  stand  now,  and  therefore  it  would  be  well  for 
gentlemen  not  to  press  in.  They  are  respectfully  requested  to  preserve  order 
and  decorum. 

Mr.  Douglas.  If  further  evidence  was  necessary  to  show  that  the  Lecomp- 
ton  Constitution  is  not  the  will  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  you  find  it  in  the  ac 
tion  of  the  Legislature  of  that  Territory.  On  the  first  Monday  in  October  an 
election  took  place  for  members  of  the  Territorial  Legislature.  It  was  a  se 
vere  struggle  between  the  two  great  parties  in  the  Territory.  On  a  fair  test, 
and  at  the  fairest  election,  as  is  recorded  on  all  hands,  ever  held  in  the  Ter 
ritory,  a  Legislature  was  elected.  That  Legislature  came  together  and  re 
monstrated,  by  an  overwhelming  majority,  against  this  Constitution,  as  not 
being  the  act  and  deed  of  that  people,  and  not  embodying  their  will.  Ask 
ths  late  governor  of  the  Territory,  and  he  will  tell  you  that  it  is  a  mockery 
to  call  this  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people.  Ask  the  secretary  of  the  Terri 
tory,  ex-Governor  Stanton,  and  he  will  tell  you  the  same  thing.  I  will  haz 
ard  the  prediction,  that  if  you  ask  Governor  Denver  to-day,  he  will  tell  you, 
if  he  answers  at  all,  that  it  is  a  mockery,  nay,  a  crime,  to  attempt  to  enfoi'ce 
this  Constitution  as  an  embodiment  of  the  will  of  that  people.  Ask,  then, 
your  official  agents  in  the  Territory  ;  ask  the  Legislature  elected  by  the  peo 
ple  at  the  last  election  ;  consult  the  poll-books  on  a  fair  election  held  in  pur 
suance  of  law ;  consult  private  citizens  from  there ;  consult  whatever  sources 
of  information  you  please,  and  you  get  the  same  answer — that  this  Constitu 
tion  does  not  embody  the  public  will,  is  not  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people, 
does  not  represent  their  wishes ;  and  hence  I  deny  your  right,  your  author 
ity,  to  make  it  their  organic  law.  If  the  Lecompton  Constitution  ever  be 
comes  the  organic  law  of  the  State  of  Kansas,  it  will  be  the  act  of  Congress 
that  makes  it  so,  and  not  the  act  or  will  of  the  people  of  Kansas. 

But  we  are  told  that  it  is  a  matter  of  but  small  moment  whether  the  Con 
stitution  embodies  the  public  will  or  not,  because  it  can  be  modified  and 
changed  by  the  people  of  Kansas  at  any  time  as  soon  as  they  arc  admitted 
into  the  Union.  Sir,  it  matters  not  whether  it  can  be  changed  or  can  not  be 
changed,  so  far  as  the  principle  involved  is  concerned.  It  matters  not  wheth 
er  this  Constitution  is  to  be  the  permanent  fundamental  law  of  Kansas,  or  is 
to  last  only  a  day,  or  a  month,  or  a  year ;  because,  if  it  is  not  their  act  and 
deed,  you  have  no  right  to  force  it  upon  them  for  a  single  day.  If  you  have 
the  power  to  force  it  upon  this  people  for  one  day,  you  may  do  it  for  a  year, 
for  ten  years,  or  permanently.  The  principle  involved  is  the  same.  It  is  as 
much  a  violation  of  fundamental  principle,  a  violation  of  popular  sovereignty, 
a  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  to  force  a  state  Constitu 
tion  on  an  unwilling  people  for  a  day,  as  it  is  for  a  year  or  for  a  longer  time. 
When  you  set  the  example  of  violating  the  fundamental  principles  of  free 
government,  even  for  a  short  period,  you  have  made  a  precedent  that  will 
enable  unscrupulous  men  in  future  times,  under  high  partisan  excitement, 
to  subvert  all  the  other  great  principles  upon  which  our  institutions  rest. 

But,  sir,  is  it  true  that  this  Constitution  may  be  changed  immediately  by 
the  people  of  Kansas  ?  The  President  of  the  United  States  tells  us  that  the 
people  can  make  and  unmake  Constitutions  at  pleasure  ;  that  the  people 
have  no  right  to  tie  their  own  hands  and  prohibit  a  change  of  the  Constitu 
tion  until  1864,  or  any  other  period  ;  that  the  right  of  change  always  exists, 
and  that  the  change  may  be  made  by  the  people  at  any  time  in  their  own 
way,  at  pleasure,  by  the  consent  of  the  Legislature.  I  do  not  agree  that  the 
people  can  not  tie  their  own  hands.  I  hold  that  a  Constitution  is  a  social 


336  LIFE    OF   STEPHFJS   A.  DOUGLAS. 

compact  between  all  the  people  of  the  state  that  adopts  it ;  between  each 
man  in  the  state,  and  every  other  man ;  binding  upon  them  all ;  and  they 
have  a  right  to  say  it  shall  only  be  changed  at  a  particular  time  and  in  a  par 
ticular  manner,  and  then  only  after  such  and  such  periods  of  deliberation. 
Not  only  have  they  a  right  to  do  this,  but  it  is  wise  that  the  fundamental  law 
should  have  some  stability,  some  permanency,  and  not  be  liable  to  fluctuation 
and  change  by  every  ebullition  of  passion. 

This  Constitution  provides  that  after  the  year  1864  it  may  be  changed  by 
the  Legislatm-e  by  a  two  thirds  vote  of  each  House,  submitting  to  the  people 
the  question  whether  they  will  hold  a  convention  for  the  purpose  of  amend 
ing  the  Constitution.  I  hold  that,  when  a  Constitution  provides  one  time  of 
change,  by  every  rule  of  interpretation  it  excludes  all  other  times ;  and  when 
it  prescribes  one  mode  of  change,  it  excludes  all  other  modes.  I  hold  that 
it  is  the  fair  intendment  and  interpretation  of  this  Constitution  that  it  is  not 
to  be  changed  until  after  the  year  1864,  and  then  only  in  the  manner  pre 
scribed  in  the  instrument.  If  it  were  true  that  this  Constitution  was  the  act 
and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas — if  it  were  true  that  it  embodied  their  will 
— I  hold  that  such  a  provision  against  change  for  a  sufficient  length  of  time 
to  enable  the  people  to  test  its  practical  workings  would  be  a  wise  provision, 
and  not  liable  to  objection.  That  people  are  not  capable  of  self-government 
who  can  not  make  a  Constitution  under  which  they  are  willing  to  live  for  a 
period  of  six  years  without  change.  I  do  not  object  that  this  Constitution 
can  not  be  changed  until  after  1864,  provided  you  show  me  that  it  be  the  act 
and  deed  of  the  people,  and  embodies  their  will  now.  If  it  be  not  their  act 
and  deed,  you  have  110  right  to  fix  it  upon  them  for  a  day — not  for  an  hour 
— not  for  an  instant ;  for  it  is  a  violation  of  the  great  principle  of  free  gov 
ernment  to  force  it  upon  them. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  tells  us  that  he  sees  no  objection  to  in 
serting  a  clause  in  the  act  of  admission  declaratory  of  the  right  of  the  people 
of  Kansas,  with  the  consent  of  the  first  Legislature,  to  change  this  Constitu 
tion,  notwithstanding  the  provision  which  it  contains  that  it  shall  not  be 
changed  until  after  the  year  1864.  Where  does  Congress  get  power  to  in 
tervene  and  change  a  provision  in  the  Constitution  of  a  state  ?  If  this  Con 
stitution  declares,  as  I  insist  it  does,  that  it  shall  not  be  changed  until  after 
1864,  what  right  has  Congress  to  intervene,  to  alter,  or  annul  that  provision 
prohibiting  alteration  ?  If  you  can  annul  one  provision,  you  may  another, 
and  another,  and  another,  until  you  have  destroyed  the  entire  instrument. 
I  deny  your  right  to  annul ;  I  deny  your  right  to  change,  or  even  to  construe 
the  meaning  of  a  single  clause  of  this  Constitution.  If  it  be  the  act  and  deed 
of  the  people  of  Kansas,  and  becomes  their  fundamental  law,  it  is  sacred ; 
you  have  no  right  to  touch  it,  no  right  to  construe  it,  no  right  to  determine 
its  meaning  ;  it  is  theirs,  not  yours.  You  must  take  it  as  it  is,  or  reject  it  as 
a  whole ;  but  put  not  your  sacrilegious  hands  upon  the  instrument  if  it  be 
their  act  and  deed.  Whenever  this  government  undertakes  to  construe  state 
Constitutions  and  to  recognize  the  right  of  the  people  of  a  state  to  act  in  a  dif 
ferent  manner  from  that  provided  in  their  Constitution ;  whenever  it  under 
takes  to  give  a  meaning  to  a  clause  of  a  state  Constitution,  which  that  state 
has  not  given ;  whenever  it  undertakes  to  do  that,  and  its  right  is  acknowl 
edged,  farewell  to  state  rights,  farewell  to  state  sovereignty ;  your  states  be 
come  mere  provinces,  dependencies,  with  no  more  independence  and  no 
more  rights  than  the  counties  of  the  different  states.  This  doctrine,  that 
Congress  may  intervene,  and  annul,  construe,  or  change  a  clause  in  a  state 
Constitution, ,  subverts  the  fundamental  principles  upon  which  our  complex 
system  of  government  rests. 

Upon  this  point,  the  Committee  on  Territories,  in  the  majority  report,  find 
themselves  constrained  to  dissent  from  the  doctrine  of  the  President.  They 


THE  LECOMPTON  CONTROVERSY.  337 

see  no  necessity,  and,  if  I  understand  the  report,  no  legal  authority  on  the 
part  of  Congress  to  intervene  and  construe  this  or  any  other  provision  of  the 
Constitution ;  but  the  distinguished  gentleman  who  makes  the  report  from 
the  Committee  on  Territories  has,  in  his  own  estimation,  obviated  all  objec 
tion  by  finding  a  clause  in  the  Constitution  of  Kansas  which  he  thinks  reme 
dies  the  whole  evil.  It  is  in  the  Bill  of  Rights,  and  is  in  these  words: 

"All  political  power  is  inherent  in  the  people,  and  all  free  governments 
are  founded  on  their  authority,  and  instituted  for  their  benefit ;  and,  there 
fore,  they  have  at  all  times  an  inalienable  and  indefeasible  right  to  alter,  re 
form,  or"  abolish  their  form  of  government  in  such  a  manner  as  they  may 
think  proper." 

The  Vice  President.  The  senator  from  Illinois  will  pause  for  a  moment. 
The  sergeant-at-arms  will  go  up  and  close  the  centre  door  of  the  ladies'  gal 
lery  ;  shut  it,  and  keep  it  shut,  so  as  to  admit  no  more  persons  there. 

Mr.  Douglas.  There  appears  to  be  some  difficulty  at  the  southern  door  of 
the  eastern  gallery,  and  I  hope  the  chair  will  direct  that  to  be  closed. 

The  Vice  President.  The  chair  has  sent  an  officer  to  that  door  to  close  it, 
and  preserve  quiet  there.  The  senator  from  Illinois  will  proceed. 

Mr.  Douglas.  The  senator  from  Missouri,  who  makes  the  report  of  the 
majority  of  the  committee,  is  under  the  impression  that  this  clause  in  the  Bill 
of  Rights  overrides  and  changes  the  provision  in  the  Lecompton  Constitution, 
which  declares  that  there  shall  be  no  change  until  after  1864,  and  then  only 
'>y  a  two  thirds  vote  of  the  Legislature.  How  does  he  make  that  override 
•he  prohibition  ?  By  taking  the  clause  in  the  Bill  of  Rights  which  is  intend 
ed  only  to  assert  abstract  rights  that  may  be  exercised  by  the  people  when 
{riven  to  the  last  resort,  to  wit,  to  revolution.  That  is  an  abstract  principle, 
ntended  to  assert  the  right  in  the  people  of  Kansas  to  change  their  form  of 
government  under  the  same  law,  the  same  authority  that  our  ancestors  re 
sisted  British  power,  and  overthrew  the  British  authority  upon  this  conti 
nent.  It  was  under  that  principle  that  our  fathers  burnt  up  the  stamps,  and 
sent  the  stamp  agents  out  of  the  country.  It  was  under  that  principle  that 
our  fathers  resorted  to  arms  to  maintain  the  right  to  change  their  form  of 
government  from  a  monarchy  to  a  republic — change  by  revolution,  because 
they  arrived  at  the  point  where  resistance  was  a  less  evil  than  submission. 
That  the  people  have  a  right  to  appeal  to  the  God  of  arms  to  overthrow  the 
power  that  oppresses  them,  and  change  their  form  of  government  whenever 
their  oppressions  are  intolerable,  aud  resistance  is  a  less  evil  than  submission, 
is  a  great  truth  that  no  Republican,  no  Democrat,  no  citizen  of  a  free  coun 
try  should  ever  question.  But,  sir,  that  clause  was  never  intended  to  fur 
nish  the  lawful  mode  by  which  this  Constitution  could  be  changed,  for  the 
reason  that  the  same  instrument  points  out  a  different  mode  than  the  one 
therein  asserted ;  and  when  a  specific  mode  is  prescribed,  and  time  is  to 
elapse  before  that  mode  can  be  resorted  to,  that  excludes  the  idea  that  it  can 
be  done  in  any  other  mode,  or  at  a  prior  time. 

But,  sir,  this  article  from  the  Bill  of  Rights  proves  entirely  too  much.  The 
President  says  you  may  put  into  this  bill  a  clause  recognizing  the  right  of 
the  people  of  Kansas  to  change  their  Constitution  by  the  consent  of  the  first 
Legislature.  What  does  the  Bill  of  Rights  say?  That  it  is  the  inalienable 
and  indefeasible  right  of  the  people,  at  all  times,  to  alter,  abolish,  or  reform 
their  form  of  government  in  such  manner  as  they  may  think  proper,  not  in 
such  manner  as  the  Legislature  shall  prescribe,  nor  at  such  time  as  the  leg 
islative  authority  or  the  existing  government  may  provide,  but  in  such  man 
lier  as  the  people  think  proper  in  town  meeting,  in  convention,  through  the 
Legislature,  in  popular  assemblages,  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet,  in  any  man 
ner  the  people  themselves  may  determine.  That  is  the  right  and  the  nature 
of  the  right  authorized  by  this  Bill  of  Kights.  It  is  the  revolutionary  reme- 

P 


338  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

dy,  not  the  lawful  mode.  There  are  two  modes  of  changing  the  Constitu 
tion  of  a  state — one  lawful,  the  other  revolutionary.  The  lawful  mode  is  the 
one  prescribed  in  the  instrument.  The  revolutionary  mode  is  one  in  viola 
tion  of  the  instrument.  The  revolutionary  mode  may  be  peaceful  or  may  be 
forcible ;  that  depends  on  whether  there  is  resistance.  If  a  people  are  unan 
imous  in  favor  of  a  change,  if  nobody  opposes  it,  the  revolutionary  means 
may  be  a  peaceful  remedy ;  but  if,  in  the  progress  of  the  revolution,  while 
you  are  making  the  change,  you  meet  with  resistance,  then  it  becomes  civil 
war,  treason,  rebellion,  if  you  fail,  and  a  successful  revolution  if  you  succeed. 

I  say,  then,  the  mode  pointed  out  in  the  Bill  of  Rights  is  the  revolutionary 
mode,  and  not  the  lawful  means  provided  in  the  instrument;  but  if  the 
Committee  on  Territories  be  right  in  saying  that  this  is  a  lawful  mode,  then 
the  recommendation  of  the  President,  'that  Congress  should  recognize  the 
right  to  do  it  by  the  first  Legislature,  violates  this  Constitution.  Why? 
The  President  recommends  us  to  recognize  their  rights  through  the  Legis 
lature,  and  in  that  mode  alone.  The  Bill  of  Eights  says  the  people  shall  do 
it  in  such  manner  as  they  please.  If  the  construction  given  by  the  Commit 
tee  on  Territories  be  right,  you  dare  not  vote  for  the  President's  proposition 
to  recognize  the  right  of  the  first  Legislature  to  do  it,  for  you  give  a  con 
struction  to  the  instrument  in  violation  of  its  terms. 

Mr.  Hammond.  Will  the  senator  from  Illinois  allow  me  to  interrupt  him 
a  moment? 

Mr.  Douglas.  With  a  great  deal  of  pleasure. 

Mr.  Hammond.  I  understood  the  senator  to  say  just  now  that  Congress 
had  no  right  to  look  into  the  Constitution  of  a  state  and  place  a  construction 
upon  it.  If  that  be  true,  I  would  inquire  of  the  senator  from  Illinois  how  is 
Congress  to  know  whether  a  Constitution  is  republican  or  not  ?  If  it  be  true, 
I  would  inquire  of  him,  further,  why  is  he  here  now  discussing  and  placing 
a  construction  upon  the  Constitution  of  Kansas  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  will  take  great  pleasure  in  answering  the  gentleman  from 
South  Carolina.  I  have  a  right  to  look  into  this  Constitution  to  see  wheth 
er,  in  my  opinion,  it  is  republican.  I  have  this  right  to  look  at  it  only  for 
the  purpose  of  regulating  my  vote.  The  judgment  on  which  I  base  my  vote 
is  one  binding  on  nobody  but  myself.  I  am  talking  now,  not  on  forming  a 
construction  by  which  members  of  Congress  are  to  govern  themselves,  but  I 
am  speaking  of  your  right  to  place  a  construction  upon  this  Constitution 
binding  upon  the  people  and  government  of  Kansas.  Give  me  the  power  to 
construe  the  Constitution  of  Kansas  authoritatively,  and  then  I  have  the 
power  to  change  it,  to  alter  it,  to  annul  it,  to  make  it  mean  what  I  please, 
and  not  what  they  mean. 

Mr.  Hammond.  I  should  have  thought  that  the  senator  would  have  de 
nounced  the  attempt  to  construe  the  Constitution,  and  left  the  matter  there, 
after  having  asserted  that  no  such  power  exists ;  but  when  he  goes  on  to  con 
strue  it  himself,  he  is  inconsistent  with  his  first  proposition  that  there  is  no 
right  to  construe  it. 

Mr.  Douglas.  No,  sir ;  I  deny  the  right  of  Congress  to  construe  it  author 
itatively  for  the  people  of  Kansas.  I  am  not  denying  the  right  of  the  sena 
tor  from  South  Carolina  to  put  his  own  construction  upon  it.  I  am  not  de 
nying  the  right  of  each  senator  here  to  make  up  his  own  mind  in  regard  to 
it.  It  is  the  duty  of  each  senator  here  to  do  that  for  himself;  but  that  is 
only  to  satisfy  his  own  judgment  and  his  own  conscience  in  regulating  his 
vote  upon  the  question.  The  point  I  am  arguing  is  whether  this  Congress 
has  any  power,  by  a  rule  of  construction,  to  change  the  Constitution  of  a 
state,  and  make  its  construction  binding  on  the  authorities  and  people  of 
that  state.  I  repeat,  if  this  Congress  can  exercise  that  power,  there  is  an 
end  of  state  rights,  an  end  of  state  sovereignty ;  this  government  becomes  a 


THE  LECOMPTON  CO^TKOVEKSY.  339 

consolidated  government,  an  empire,  a  central  power,  with  provinces  and 
dependencies,  and  ceases  to  be  a  confederation  of  sovereign  and  independent 
states.  I  am  arguing  against  the  propriety  of  Congress  acceding  to  the  rec 
ommendation  of  the  President  to  strike  that  fatal  blow  at  the  sovereignty  of 
the  states  of  this  Union. 

But,  sir,  my  friend  from  Ohio,  who  can  not  accede  quite  to  this  doctrine 
of  the  President  any  more  than  the  Committee  on  Territories  can,  proposes 
to  remedy  this  matter  in  a  different  way.  He  has  offered  an  amendment, 
which  I  ask  the  clerk  to  read. 

The  clerk  read  the  following  amendment,  intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr. 
Pugh,  to  the  amendment  intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  Green  to  the  bill 
(S.,  N.  161)  "for  the  admission  of  the  State  of  Kansas  into  the  Union:  At 
the  end  thereof  add  the  following  section : 

"Sec.  — .  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  admission  of  the  States  of 
Minnesota  and  Kansas  into  the  Union,  by  this  act,  shall  never  be  so  con 
strued  as  to  deny,  limit,  or  otherwise  impair  the  right  of  the  people  of  the  said 
states,  with  the  assent  of  their  Legislatures,  severally,  at  all  times,  to  alter, 
reform,  or  abolish  their  form  of  government,  in  such  manner  as  they  may 
think  proper,  so  that  the  same  be  still  republican  and  in  accordance  with  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  am.  at  a  loss  to  know  what  object  my  friend  from  Ohio 
expects  to  accomplish  by  this  proviso,  that  nothing  in  the  act  of  admission 
shall  be  construed  to  deny,  limit,  or  otherwise  impair  the  right  of  the  people 
to  change  their  Constitution.  Who  ever  dreamed  that  there  was  any  thing 
in  the  act  of  admission  which  could  be  so  construed  ?  It  is  not  the  act  of 
admission  to  which  we  are  alluding ;  it  is  the  provision  in  this  Constitution 
which  says  it  shall  not  be  changed  until  after  1864. 

Nobody  pretends  that  you  can  put  any  thing  in  the  act  of  admission  which 
would  limit  this  right.  What  I  am  denying  is  your  right  to  put  any  thing 
in  the  act  of  admission  either  to  limit,  or  extend,  or  construe  the  Constitu 
tion.  Nobody  pretends  that  this  act  of  admission  affects  this  point  at  all. 
The  objection,  if  it  be  an  objection,  is  in  the  Constitution  itself,  not  in  the 
act  of  admission. 

Then  what  legal  effect  would  the  amendment  of  the  senator  from  Ohio 
have  if  it  should  be  adopted  ?  I  presume  no  one  pretends  that  it  would  have 
any  legal  effect.  Is  there  a  senator  here  who  pretends  that  the  adoption  of 
the  amendment  of  the  senator  from  Ohio  would  confer  any  power  or  author 
ity  on  the  people  of  Kansas  to  change  their  Constitution  which  they  would 
not  have  without  it?  I  am  informed  the  senator  from  Ohio  said,  in  his 
speech  in  explanation  of  it,  that  it  did  not  confer  any  right  which  the  people 
would  not  otherwise  have.  Then  why  adopt  it  ?  I  can  conceive  of  but  one 
motive,  and  that  is  to  lead  the  people  to  infer  that  they  have  secured  a  right 
by  that  proviso  which  they  really  have  not  got — to  lead  them  to  suppose  that 
they  have  gained  an  advantage  which  in  reality  they  do  not  possess.  Is  that 
the  object  ?  Is  it  the  object  to  obviate  an  objection,  and  yet,  in  fact,  to  leave 
the  objection  in  full  force  ?  Why,  I  ask,  is  it  proposed  to  put  that  amend 
ment  in  the  bill  if  it  has  no  legitimate  effect — if  it  does  not  give  the  people 
any  right,  any  privilege,  which  they  would  not  possess  without  it  ?  Perhaps 
I  may  be  asked,  on  the  contrary,  what  is  the  objection  to  putting  it  in  ?  It 
may  be  said  it  is  only  the  expression  of  the  individual  opinion  of  the  members 
of  Congress.  I  will  tell  you  my  objection  to  putting  this  clause  in  the  act 
of  admission.  I  object  to  inserting  any  clause  in  the  act  of  admission  that 
expresses  any  opinion,  one  way  or  the  other,  in  respect  to  the  propriety  of 
any  provision  in  the  Constitution.  If  you  may  pronounce  judgment  on  the 
propriety  of  one  clause,  although  it  has  no  legal  effect  to  change  it,  you  may 
on  the  propriety  of  another  clause.  Suppose,  for  instance,  the  senator  from 


340  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN    A.  DOUGLAS. 

New  York  should  offer  an  amendment  that  nothing  contained  in  this  act  of 
admission  shall  be  construed  to  sanction  or  tolerate  the  right  to  hold  property 
in  man ;  or  that  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  construed  to  authorize  or 
permit  slaveholding  in  said  state  ;  or  should  propose  to  insert  an  opinion  that 
slaveholding  was  a  crime  ;  would  Southern  men  think  there  was  no  objection 
to  it  because  it  had  no  legal  effect?  Are  you  willing  that  Congress  shall  set 
the  example  of  inserting,  in  acts  of  admission,  clauses  that  pronounce  judg 
ment  against  the  domestic  institutions  of  a  state?  Are  you  willing  that  a 
Congress  composed  of  a  majority  of  free-state  men  shall  put  clauses  in  an  act 
of  admission  condemning  slaveholding?  Or,  if  we  were  a  minority,  Avould 
we  be  willing  that  you  should  put  a  clause  in  an  act  of  admission  condemning 
our  free  institutions  ? 

Now,  sir,  I  hold  that  Congress  has  no  right  to  pronounce  its  opinion  even 
upon  the  propriety  of  any  local  or  domestic  institution  of  any  state  of  this 
Union.  Each  state  is  sovereign,  with  the  unlimited  and  unrestricted  power 
and  right  to  manage  its  local  and  internal  concerns  to  suit  itself,  subject  only 
to  the  limitations  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  I  warn  gentle 
men  that  when,  in  order  to  catch  a  little  popular  favor,  they  set  the  example 
of  backing  up  a  vote  in  favor  of  this  enormous  fraud  by  putting  a  clause  in 
ihc  bill  having  no  legal  effect,  but  expressing  opinions  upon  the  propriety 
of  this  or  that  clause  of  a  state  Constitution,  they  are  setting  an  example 
that  may  return  upon  them  in  a  way  that  Avill  not  be  pleasant.  I  protest 
against  Congress  interfering  either  to  annul  or  construe,  or  express  opinions 
upon  the  propriety  of  this  clause  or  that  clause  of  the  Constitution.  I  re 
peat,  if  the  Constitution  be  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  and  if 
its  provisions  are  not  in  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
that  people  had  a  right  to  put  them  there,  and  you  have  no  right  to  touch 
them  or  to  pronounce  judgment  upon  them. 

Mr.  President,  I  come  back  to  the  question,  Ought  we  to  receive  Kansas 
into  the  Union  with  the  Lecompton  Constitution?  Is  there  satisfactory  ev 
idence  that  it  is  the  act  and  deed  of  that  people — that  it  embodies  their  will  ? 
Is  the  evidence  satisfactory  that  the  people  of  that  Territory  have  been  left 
perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own 
way  ?  I  think  not.  I  do  not  acknowledge  the  propriety,  or  justice,  or  force 
of  that  special  pleading  which  attempts,  by  technicalities,  to  fasten  a  Con 
stitution  upon  a  people  which,  it  is  admitted,  they  would  have  voted  down 
if  they  had  had  a  chance  to  do  so,  and  which  does  not  embody  their  will. 
Let  me  ask  gentlemen  from  the  South,  if  the  case  had  been  reversed,  would 
they  have  taken  the  same  view  of  the  subject  ?  Suppose  it  were  ascertain 
ed,  beyond  doubt  or  cavil,  that  three  fourths  of  the  people  of  Kansas  were 
in  favor  of  a  slaveholding  state,  and  a  convention  had  been  assembled  by 
just  such  means  and  under  just  such  circumstances  as  brought  the  Lecomp 
ton  Convention  together ;  and  suppose  that  when  it  assembled  it  was  ascer 
tained  that  three  fourths  of  the  convention  were  Free-soilers,  while  three 
fourths  of  the  people  were  in  favor  of  a  slaveholding  state  ;  suppose  an  elec 
tion  took  place  in  the  Territory  during  the  sitting  of  the  convention,  which 
'  n-eloped  the  fact  that  the  convention  did  not  represent  the  people ;  suppose 
that  convention  of  Free-soilers  had  proceeded  to  make  a  Constitution  and 
allowed  the  people  to  vote  for  it,  but  not  against  it,  and  thus  forced  a  Free- 
soil  Constitution  upon  a  slaveholding  people  against  their  will — would  you, 
gentlemen  from  the  South,  have  submitted  to  the  outrage?  Would  you 
have  come  up  here  and  demanded  that  the  Free-soil  Constitution,  adopted 
at  an  election  where  all  the  affirmative  votes  were  received,  and  all  the  neg 
ative  votes  rejected,  for  the  reason  that  it  would  have  been  voted  down  if  the 
negative  votes  had  been  received,  should  be  accepted?  Would  you  have 
said  that  it  was  fair,  that  it  was  honest,  to  force  an  Abolition  Constitution  en 


THE  LECOMPTON  CONTROVERSY.  341 

a  slaveholding  people  against  their  will  ?  Would  you  not  have  come  forward 
and  have  said  to  us  that  you  denied  that  it  was  the  embodiment  of  the  pub 
lic  will,  and  demanded  that  it  should  be  sent  back  to  the  people  to  be  voted 
upon,  so  as  to  ascertain  the  fact  ?  Would  you  not  have  said  to  us  that  you 
were  willing  to  live  up  to  the  principle  of  the  Nebraska  Bill,  to  leave  the  peo 
ple  perfectly  free  to  form  such  institutions  as  they  please ;  and  that,  if  we 
would  only  send  that  Constitution  back  and  let  the  people  have  a  fair  vote 
upon  it,  you  would  abide  the  result  ?  Suppose  we,  being  a  Northern  major 
ity,  had  said  to  you,  "No;  we  have  secured  a  sectional  advantage,  and  we 
intend  to  hold  it ;  and  we  will  force  this  Constitution  upon  an  unwilling  peo 
ple  merely  because  we  have  the  power  to  do  it;"  would  you  have  said  that 
was  fair  ? 

Mr.  Hammond.  Will  the  senator  allow  me  to  answer  him  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Hammond.  As  the  senator  looked  toward  me  in  asking  his  question,  I 
will  undertake,  though  without  authority,  to  answer  for  the  slaveholding  com 
munity.  If,  having  had  the  power  to  establish  a  slaveholding  Constitution, 
we  had  refrained  from  exercising  it,  and  those  in  favor  of  a  free-state  Con 
stitution  had  established  one  to  that  effect,  I  say  that  the  slaveholders  would 
have  submitted  to  it  until,  through  the  forms  of  constitutional  law,  they  could 
have  altered  it. 

Mr.  Douglas.  The  senator  assumes  what  I  did  not  certainly  intend  when 
he  says  that  I  looked  at  him.  I  was  propounding  the  question,  however,  to 
any  senator,  and  am  as  willing  that  the  senator  from  South  Carolina  should 
reply  as  any  other.  He  assumes  as  true,  for  the  purposes  of  his  answer,  the 
very  fact  that  is  denied — that  they  had  the  power. 

Mr.  Hammond.  Asserted  on  all  hands,  sir. 

Mr.  Douglas.  What? 

Mr.  Hammond.  Asserted  that  there  was  a  free-state  majority  when  the 
convention  was  elected. 

Mr.  Brown.  The  senator  from  Illinois  asserted  it  to-night. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Yes ;  .and  I  assert  now  that  there  was  a  free-state  majority ; 
and  I  assert,  also,  that  one  half  the  counties  of  the  Territory  were  disfran 
chised,  and  not  allowed  to  vote  at  the  election  of  delegates.  (Applause  in 
the  galleries.) 

Mr.  Hammond.  That  has  been  Answered  over  and  over  again — 

The  Vice-President.  The  senator  from  South  Carolina  will  pause  until  or 
der  is  restored. 

Mr.  Mason.  I  rise  to  a  question  of  privilege.  If  there  is  again  disorder  in 
this  chamber,  I  shall  insist  upon  the  galleries  being  cleared. 

Mr.  Brown.  I  hope  that  order  will  be  enforced.  The  Senate  is  not  a 
theatre. 

Mr.  Toombs.  The  statement  just  made  by  the  senator  from  Illinois  is  a 
great  mistake,  and  I  shall  take  issue  with  him  when  he  sits  down.  I  say  it 
is  not  true  in  any  sense,  and  I  will  answer  it. 

Mr.  Mason.   Mr.  President — 

The  Vice- President.  The  senator  from  Virginia  gives  notice  that  if  there 
be  a  repetition  of  the  demonstrations  in  the  galleries  he  will  move  to  clear 
them. 

Mr.  Mason.  If  there  is  again  disorder  in  the  galleries,  let  it  arise  from 
what  source  it  may,  I  shall  ask  the  chair  to  enforce  the  order  of  the  Senate. 

The  Vice-President.  Before  the  debate  commenced,  the  chair  expressed  the 
hope  that  these  demonstrations  would  not  occur.  He  did  not  then  think  that 
he  would  have  to  repeat  the  expression  of  that  hope.  This  floor  is  covered 
by  persons  not  members  of  the  Senate,  admitted  by  the  consent  of  the  body 
unanimously,  and  certainly  something  is  due  to  the  courtesy  of  the  Senate. 


342  LIFE    OP   STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

The  chair  does  not  believe  these  demonstrations  will  be  repeated,  and  there 
fore  takes  no  further  notice  of  what  has  occurred.  The  senator  from  Illinois 
will  proceed. 

Mr.  Douglas.  The  interposition  of  the  denial  that  about  one  half  of  the 
counties  were  disfranchised,  I  presume,  can  have  but  very  little  weight  on 
the  argument.  It  has  been  proven  over  and  over  again.  In  my  estimation 
the  proof  is  conclusive  as  to  the  fifteen  counties,  and  satisfactory,  I  think,  as 
to  nineteen,  being  half  the  counties  of  the  Territory,  that  there  were  not  such 
a  census  and  registration  as  authorized  a  vote  for  delegates.  It  has  been 
attempted  to  be  proved,  however,  that  there  was  not  a  great  manv  votes  in 
those  counties.  I  believe  the  president  of  the  convention  estimates  that  there 
were  not  more  than  fifteen  hundred  or  two  thousand  in  those  counties. 
Suppose  that  was  all.  There  were  only  a  little  over  two  thousand  votes 
polled  at  the  election  of  delegates  in  the  other  nineteen  counties  which  elect 
ed  all  the  delegates.  If  the  disfranchised  counties  contained  fifteen  hundred 
voters,  is  it  not  conclusive  that,  with  the  addition  of  five  or  six  hundred  per 
sons  in  the  other  counties,  they  could  have  changed  the  result?  Having 
been  disfranchised  in  one  half  the  counties,  the  friends  of  those  who  were  dis 
franchised  may  not  have  voted  in  the  other  counties,  because  they  had  no 
hope  of  overcoming  the  majority  in  the  other  half.  I  did  not  intend  to  go 
into  the  argument  on  that  point  again,  and  I  should  not  have  alluded  to  it 
now  but  for  the  fact  that  the  senator  from  South  Carolina  had  to  assume  as 
true,  what  I  understood  not  to  be  true,  in  order  to  predicate  his  answer  upon 
it,  that  he,  as  a  Southern  man,  would  vote  to  admit  the  state  if  the  case  had 
been  reversed,  and  a  free-state  Constitution  was  being  forced  upon  an  unwill 
ing  people,  with  the  knowledge  that  it  did  not  reflect  the  sentiments  of  that 
people. 

Mr.  Hammond.  Allow  me  to  say  that  if  the  slaveholders,  tinder  these  cir 
cumstances,  had  never  had  a  majority  at  all,  they  would,  nevertheless,  have 
submitted  until  they  could  alter  the  Constitution,  if  they  could  possibly  do  it. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  can  only  say,  then,  that  they  are  a  very  submissive  peo 
ple.  [Laughter.] 

Mr,  Hammond.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  have  never  seen  the  day  when  I  would  be  willing  to  sub 
mit  to  the  action  of  a  minority  forcing  a  Constitution  on  an  unwilling  peo 
ple  against  their  will  because  it  had  got  an  advantage.  It  violates  the  fun 
damental  principle  of  government ;  it  violates  the  foundations  on  which  all 
free  government  rests;  it  is  a  proposition  in  violation  of  the  Democratic 
creed;  in  violation  of  the  Republican  creed;  in  violation  of  the  American 
creed ;  in  violation  of  the  creed  of  every  party  which  professes  to  be  govern 
ed  by  the  principles  of  free  institutions  and  fair  elections. 

Mr.  Hammond.  Will  the  senator  allow  me  to  say  one  word  more?  If  the 
slaveholders,  under  the  circumstances  that  he  stated,  were  a  minority,  they 
would  have  submitted.  If  they  were  a  majority,  as  I  assume,  they  would 
have  submitted  until,  under  the  forms  of  constitutional  law,  they  could  have 
properly  asserted  their  power. 

Mr.  Doiiglas.  I  understood  the  senator  to  say  that ;  I  must  say  to  him  that 
I  would  rather  not  repeat  questions  on  the  same  point  over  and  over  again. 
I  am  very  feeble  to-night,  and  shall  probably  not  have  strength  enough  to  go 
through  with  my  remarks.  I  only  desire  to  say  on  that  point  that  I  regard 
the  principle  involved  here  as  vital  and  fundamental,  as  lying  at  the  founda 
tion  of  all  free  government,  and  the  violation  of  it  as  a  death-blow  to  state 
rights  and  state  sovereignty.  But,  sir,  I  pass  on.  If  you  admit  Kansas  with 
the  Lecompton  Constitution,  you  also  admit  her  with  the  state  government 
which  has  been  brought  into  existence  under  it.  Is  the  evidence  satisfacto 
ry  that  that  state  government  has  been  fairly  and  honestly  elected  ?  Is  the 


THE   LECOMPTON    CONTROVERSY.  iUJJ 

evidence  satisfactory  that  the  elections  were  fairly  and  honestly  held,  and 
fairly  and  honestly  returned  ?  You  have  all  seen  the  evidence  showing  the 
fraudulent  voting ;  the  forged  returns,  from  precinct  after  precinct,  changing 
the  result  not  only  upon  the  legislative  ticket,  but  also  upon  the  ticket  for 
governor  and  state  officers.  The  false  returns  in  regard  to  Delaware  Cross 
ing,  changing  the  complexion  of  the  Legislature,  are  admitted.  The  evi 
dence  is  equally  conclusive  as  to  the  Shawnee  Precinct,  the  Oxford  Precinct, 
the  Kickapoo  Precinct,  and  many  others,  making  a  difference  of  some  three 
thousand  votes  in  the  general  aggregate,  and  changing  the  whole  result  of 
the  election.  Yet,  sir,  we  are  called  upon  to  admit  Kansas  with  the  state 
government  thus  brought  into  existence  not  only  by  fraudulent  voting,  but 
forged  returns,  sustained  by  perjury.  The  Senate  well  recollects  the  efforts 
that  I  made  before  the  subject  was  referred  to  the  committee,  and  since,  to 
ascertain  to  whom  the  certificates  of  election  were  awarded,  that  we  might 
know  whether  they  were  given  to  the  men  honestly  elected,  or  to  the  men 
whose  elections  depended  upon  forgery  and  perjury.  Can  any  one  tell  me 
now  to  whom  those  certificates  have  been  issued,  if  they  have  been  issued  at 
all  ?  Can  any  man  tell  me  whether  we  are  installing,  by  receiving  this  state 
government,  officers  whose  sole  title  depends  upon  forgery,  or  those  whose  ti 
tle  depends  upon  popular  votes  ?  We  have  been  calling  for  that  information 
for  about  three  months,  but  we  have  called  in  vain.  One  day  the  rumor 
would  be  that  Mr.  Calhoun  would  declare  the  free-state  ticket  elected,  and 
next  day  that  he  would  declare  the  pro-slavery  ticket  elected.  So  it  has  al 
ternated,  like  the  chills  and  fever,  day  after  day,  until  within  the  last  three 
days,  when  the  action  of  Congress  became  a  little  dubious,  when  it  was  doubt 
ful  whether  Northern  men  were  willing  to  vote  for  a  state  government  de 
pending  upon  forgery  and  perjury,  and  then  we  find  that  the  president  of  the 
Lecompton  Convention  addresses  a  letter  to  the  editor  of  the  Star,  a  news 
paper  in  this  city,  telling  what  he  thinks  is  the  result  of  the  election.  He 
says  it  is  true  that  he  has  received  no  answer  to  his  letters  of  inquiry  to  Gov 
ernor  Denver ;  he  has  no  official  information  on  the  subject ;  but,  from  ru 
mors  and  unofficial  information,  he  is  now  satisfied  that  the  Delaware  Cross 
ing  return  was  a  fraud ;  that  it  will  be  set  aside ;  and  that,  accordingly,  the 
result  will  be  that  certificates  will  be  issued  to  the  free-state  men.  I  do  not 
mean  to  deny  that  Mr.  Calhoun  may  think  such  will  be  the  result ;  but,  while 
he  may  think  so,  I  would  rather  know  how  the  fact  is.  His  thoughts  are  not 
important,  but  the  fact  is  vital  in  establishing  the  honesty  or  dishonesty  of  the 
state  government  which  we  are  about  to  recognize.  It  so  happens  that  Mr. 
Calhoun  has  no  more  power,  no  more  authority  over  that  question  now  than 
the  senator  from  Missouri,  or  any  other  member  of  this  body.  The  cele 
brated  Lecompton  schedule  provides  that, 

"In  case  of  removal,  ABSENCE,  or  disability  of  the  president  of  this  con 
vention  to  discharge  the  duties  herein  imposed  on  him,  the  president  pro  tern- 
pore  of  this  convention  shall  perform  said  duties  ;  and  in  case  of  absence,  re 
fusal,  or  disability  of  the  president  pro  tewpore,  a  committee  consisting  of 
seven,  or  a  majority  of  them,  shall  discharge  the  duties  required  of  the  pres 
ident  of  this  convention." 

As  Mr.  Calhoun  is  absent  from  the  Territory,  and,  by  reason  of  that  ab 
sence,  is  deprived  of  all  authority  over  the  subject-matter,  and  as  the  president 
pro  tempore  has  succeeded  to  his  powers,  is  it  satisfactory  for  the  deposed 
president  to  address  a  letter  to  the  editor  of  the  Star  announcing  his  private 
opinion  as  to  who  has  been  elected  ?  I  should  like  to  know  who  the  president 
pro  tempore  is,  and  where  he  is ;  and  if  he  is  in  Kansas,  whether  he  has  arrived 
at  the  same  conclusion  which  the  ex-president  Calhoun  has  announced.  I 
should  like  to  know  whether  that  president  pro  tempore  has  already  issued 
his  certificate  to  the  pro-slavery  men  in  Kansas,  while  Mr.  Calhoun  expresses 


344  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.  DOUGLAS. 

the  opinion  in  the  Star  that  the  certificates  will  be  issued  to  the  free-state 
men  ?  If  that  president  pro  tempore  has  become  a  fugitive  from  justice,  and 
escaped  from  the  Territory,  I  should  like  then  to  know  who  are  the  commit 
tee  of  seven  that  were  to  take  his  place ;  and  whether  they,  or  a  majority  of 
them,  have  arrived  at  the  same  conclusion  to  which  Mr.  Calhoun  has  come? 
Inasmuch  as  this  opinion  is  published  to  the  world  just  before  the  vote  is  to 
be  taken  here,  and  is  expected  to  catch  the  votes  of  some  green  members  of 
one  body  or  the  other,  I  should  like  to  know  Avhether  certificates  have  been 
issued  ?  and,  if  so,  by  whom,  and  to  whom  ?  where  the  president  pro  tempore 
is  ?  where  the  committee  of  seven  may  be  found  ?  and  then  we  might  know 
who  constitute  the  Legislature,  and  who  constitute  the  state  government 
which  we  are  to  bring  into  being.  \Ye  are  not  only  to  admit  Kansas  with  a 
Constitution,  but  with  a  state  government ;  with  a  governor,  a  Legislature,  a 
judicially ;  with  executive,  legislative,  judicial,  and  ministerial  officers.  In 
asmuch  as  we  are  told  by  the  President  that  the  first  Legislature  may  take 
steps  to  call  a  convention  to  change  the  Constitution,  I  should  like  to  know 
of  whom  that  Legislature  is  composed  ?  Inasmuch  as  the  governor  would 
have  the  power  to  veto  an  act  of  the  Legislature  calling  a  convention,  I 
should  like  to  know  who  is  governor,  so  that  I  may  judge  whether  he  would 
veto  such  an  act  ?  Can  not  our  good  friends  get  the  president  pro  tempore  of 
the  convention  to  write  a  letter  to  the  Star  ?  Can  they  not  procure  a  letter 
from  the  committee  of  seven?  Can  they  not  clear  up  this  mystery,  and  re 
lieve  our  suspicious  minds  of  any  thing  unfair  or  foul  in  the  arrangement  of 
this  matter?  Let  us  know  how  the  fact  is. 

This  publication  of  itself  is  calculated  to  create  more  apprehension  than 
there  was  before.  As  long  as  Mr.  Calhoun  took  the  ground  that  he  would 
never  do clare  the  result  until  Lecompton  was  admitted,  and  that,  if  it  was 
not  aoh.iitted,  he  would  never  make  the  decision,  there  seemed  to  be  some 
reason  in  his  course;  but  when,  after  taking  that  ground  for  months,  it  be 
came  understood  that  Lecompton  was  dead,  or  was  lingering  and  languish 
ing,  and  likely  to  die,  and  when  a  few  more  votes  were  necessarv,  and  a  pre 
text  was  necessary  to  be  given  in  order  to  secure  them,  we  find  this  letter 
published  by  the  deposed  ex-pi-esident,  giving  his  opinion  when  he  had  no 
power  over  the  subject ;  and  when  it  appears  by  the  Constitution  itself  that 
another  man  or  another  body  of  men  has  the  decision  in  their  hands,  it  is 
calculated  to  arouse  our  suspicions  as  to  what  the  result  will  be  after  Le 
compton  is  admitted. 

Mr.  President,  in  the  course  of  the  debate  on  this  bill,  before  I  was  com 
pelled  to  absent  myself  from  the  Senate  on  account  of  sickness,  and  I  presume 
the  same  has  been  the  case  during  my  absence,  much  was  said  on  the  Slavery 
question  in  connection  with  the  admission  of  Kansas.  Many  gentlemen  have 
labored  to  produce  the  impression  that  the  whole  opposition  to  the  admission 
arises  out  of  the  fact  that  the  Lecompton  Constitution  makes  Kansas  a  slave 
state.  I  am  sure  that  no  gentleman  here  will  do  me  the  injustice  to  assert  or 
suppose  that  my  opposition  is  predicated  on  that  consideration,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  my  speech  against  the  admission  of  Kansas  under  the  Lecompton 
Constitution  was  made  on  the  9th  of  December,  two  weeks  before  the  vote 
was  taken  upon  the  slavery  clause  in  Kansas,  and  when  the  general  impres 
sion  was  that  the  pro-slavery  clause  would  be  excluded.  I  predicated  my 
opposition  then,  as  I  do  now,  upon  the  ground  that  it  was  a  violation  of  the 
fundamental  principles  of  government,  a  violation  of  popular  sovereignty,  a 
violation  of  the  Democratic  platform,  a  violation  of  all  party  platforms,  and 
a  fatal  blow  to  the  independence  of  the  new  states.  I  told  you  then  that  you 
had  no  more  right  to  force  a  free-state  Constitution  upon  a  people  against 
their  will  than  you  had  to  force  a  slave-state  Constitution.  Will  gentlemen 
say  that,  on  the  other  side,  slavery  has  no  influence  in  producing  that  united, 


THE  LECOMPTON  CONTROVERSY.  345 

almost  unanimous  support  which  we  find  from  gentlemen  living  in  one  sec 
tion  of  the  Union  in  favor  of  the  Lccompton  Constitution?  If  slavery  had 
nothing  to  do  with  it,  would  there  have  been  so  much  hesitation  about  Mr. 
Calhoun's  declaring  the  result  of  the  election  prior  to  the  vote  in  Congress? 
I  submit,  then,  whether  we  ought  not  to  discard  the  Slavery  question  alto 
gether,  and  approach  the  real  question  before  us  fairly,  calmly,  dispassion 
ately,  and  decide  whether,  but  for  the  slavery  clause,  this  Lecompton  Con 
stitution  could  receive  a  single  vote  in  either  house  of  Congress.  Were  it  not 
for  the  slavery  clause,  would  there  be  any  objection  to  sending  it  back  to  the 
people  for  a  vote  ?  Were  it  not  for  the  slavery  clause,  would  there  be  any 
objection  to  letting  Kansas  wait  until  she  had  ninety  thousand  people,  instead 
of  coming  into  the  Union  with  not  over  forty-five  or  fifty  thousand  ?  Were 
it  not  for  the  Slavery  question,  would  Kansas  have  occupied  any  considerable 
portion  of  our  thoughts  ?  would  it  have  divided  and  distracted  political  parties 
so  as  to  create  bitter  and  acrimonious  feelings?  I- say  now  to  our  Southern 
friends  that  I  will  act,  on  this  question  on  the  right  of  the  people  to  decide  for 
themselves,  irrespective  of  the'fact  whether  they  decide  for  or  against  slaveiy, 
provided  it  be  submitted  to  a  fair  vote  at  a  fair  election,  and  with  honest 
returns. 

In  this  connection  there  is  another  topic  to  which  I  desire  to  allude.  I 
seldom  refer  to  the  course  of  newspapers,  or  notice  the  articles  which  they 
publish  in  regard  to  myself;  but  the  course  of  the  Washington  Union  has 
been  so  extraordinary  for  the  last  two  or  three  months,  that  I  think  it  well 
enough  to  make  some  allusion  to  it.  It  has  read  me  out  of  the  Democratic 
party  every  other  day,  at  least,  for  two  or  three  months,  and  keeps  reading 
me  out  (laughter)  ;  and,  as  if  it  had  not  succeeded,  still  continues  to  read  me 
out,  using  such  terms  as  "traitor,"  "renegade,"  "deserter,"  and  other  kind 
and  polite  epithets  of  that  nature.  Sir,  I  have  no  vindication  to  make  of  my 
Democracy  against  the  Washington  Union,  or  any  other  newspaper.  I  am 
willing  to  allow 'my  history  and  action  for  the  last  twenty  years  to  speak  for 
themselves  as  to  my  political  principles,  and  my  fidelity  to  political  obliga 
tions.  The  Washington  Union  has  a  personal  grievance.  When  its  editor 
was  nominated  for  public  printer  I  declined  to  vote  for  him,  and  stated  that 
at  some  time  I  might  give  my  reasons  for  doing  so.  Since  I  declined  to  give 
that  vote,  this  scurrilous  abuse,  these  vindictive  and  constant  attacks,  have 
been  repeated  almost  daily  on  me.  Will  my  friend  from  Michigan  read  the 
article  to  which  I  allude  ? 

Mr.  Stuart  read  the  following  editorial  article  from  the  Washington  Union 
of  November  17,  1857  : 

"FREE-SOILISM. — The  primaiy  object  of  all  government,  in  its  original  in 
stitution,  is  the  protection  of  person  and  property.  It  is  for  this  alone  that 
men  surrender  a  portion  of  their  natural  rights. 

"In  order  that  this  object  may  be  fully  accomplished,  it  is  necessary  that 
this  protection  should  be  equally  extended  to  all  classes  of  free  citizens  with 
out  exception.  This,  at  least,  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  which  is  the  original  compact  on  which  all  our  institu 
tions  are  based. 

"Slaves  were  recognized  as  property  in  the  British  colonies  of  North  Amer 
ica  by  the  government  of  Great  Britain,  by  the  colonial  laws,  and  by  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States.  Under  these  sanctions  vested  rights  have  ac 
crued  to  the  amount  of  some  sixteen  hundred  million  dollars.  It  is  therefore 
the  duty  of  Congress  and  the  state  Legislatures  to  pi-otect  that  property. 

"The  Constitution  declares  that  'the  citizens  of  each  state  shall  be  en 
titled  to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several  states.' 
Every  citizen  of  one  state  coming  into  another  state  has  therefore  a  right  to 
the  protection  of  his  person,  and  that  property  which  is  recognized  as  such  by 

P2 


346  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.  DOUGLAS. 

the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  any  law  of  a  state  to  the  contrary  not 
withstanding.  So  far  from  any  state  having  a  right  to  deprive  him  of  this"  prop 
erty,  it  is  its  bonnden  duty  to  protect  him  in  its  possession. 

"  If  these  views  are  correct — and  we  believe  it  would  be  difficult  to  inval 
idate  them — it  follows  that  all  state  laws,  whether  organic  or  otherwise,  which 
prohibit  a  citizen  of  one  state  from  settling  in  another,  and  bringing  his  slave 
property  with  him,  and  most  especially  declaring  it  forfeited,  are  direct  viola 
tions  of  the  original  intention  of  a  government  which,  as  before  stated,  is  the 
protection  of  person  and  property,  and  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
which  recognizes  property  in  slaves,  and  declares  that  '  the  citizens  of  each 
state  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the 
several  states, '  among  the  most  essential  of  which  is  the  protection  of  person 
and  property. 

"What  is  recognized  as  property  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
by  a  provision  which  applies  equally  to  all  the  states,  has  an  inalienable  right 
to  be  protected  in  all  the  states. "  *  *  *  * 

"  The  protection  of  property  being,  next  to  fhat  of  person,  the  most  import 
ant  object  of  all  good  government,  and  property  in  slaves  being  recognized  by 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  originally  by  all  the  old  thir 
teen  states,  we  have  never  doubted  that  the  emancipation  of  slaves  in  those 
states  where  it  previously  existed,  by  an  arbitrary  act  of  the  Legislature,  was 
a  gross  violation  of  the  rights  of  property." 

' '  The  emancipation  of  the  slaves  of  the  Northern  States  was  then,  as  previously 
stated,  a  gross  outrage  on  the  rights  of  property,  inasmuch  as  it  was  not  a  vol 
untary  relinquishment  on  the  part  of  the  owners.  It  was  an  act  of  coercive 
legislation."  *  *  *  * 

"This  measure  of  emancipation  was  the  parent  or  the  offspring  of  a  doc 
trine  which  may  be  so  extended  as  to  place  the  property  of  every  man  in  the 
community  at  the  mercy  of  rabid  fanaticism  or  political  expediency.  It  is 
only  to  substitute  scruples  of  conscience  in  place  of  established  constitutional 
principle,  and  all  laws  and  all  constitutions  become  a  dead  letter.  The  rights 
of  persons  and  property  become  subservient,  not  to  laws  and  Constitutions, 
but  to  fanatical  dogmas,  and  thus  the  end  and  object  of  all  good  government 
is  completely  frustrated.  There  is  no  longer  any  rule  of  law  nor  any  consti 
tutional  guide ;  and  the  people  are  left  to  the  discretion,  or  rather  the  mad 
ness,  of  a  school  of  instructors  who  can  neither  comprehend  their  own  dogmas 
nor  make  them  comprehensible  to  others." 

"Where  is  all  this  to  end?  and  what  security  have  the  free  citizens  of  the 
United  States  that  their  dearest  rights  may  not,  one  after  the  other,  be  offer 
ed  up  at  the  shrine  of  the  demon  of  fanaticism,  the  most  dangerous  of  all  the 
enemies  of  freedom  ?  If  the  Constitution  is  no  longer  to  be  our  guide  and 
protector,  where  shall  we  find  barriers  to  defend  us  against  a  system  of  legis 
lation  restrained  by  no  laws  and  no  Constitutions,  which  creates  crimes  at 
pleasure,  punishes  them  at  will,  and  sacrifices  the  rights  of  persons  and  prop 
erty  to  a  dogma  or  a  scruple  of  conscience  ?  All  this  is  but  the  old  laws  of 
Puritanism  now  fermenting  and  souring  in  the  exhausted  beer-barrel  of  Mas 
sachusetts.  The  descendants  of  this  race  of  ecclesiastical  tyrants,  or  rather 
ecclesiastical  slaves,  have  spread  over  the  western  part  of  the  State  of  New 
York,  and  throughout  all  the  new  states,  where  they  have,  to  some  extent,  dis 
seminated  their  manners,  habits,  and  principles,  most  especially  their  blind 
subserviency  to  old  idols,  and  their  abject  subjection  to  their  priests.  There 
is  no  doubt  that  they  aspire  to  give  tone  and  character  to  the  whole  confed 
eracy,  and  believe  that  their  dream  will  be  realized  ?  We  are  pretty  well  con 
vinced,  however,  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  will  never  become  a  na 
tion  of  fanatical  Puritans." 

Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  President,  you  here  find  several  distinct  propositions  ad- 


THE  LECOMPTON  CONTROVERSY.  347 

vanced  boldly  by  the  Washington  Union  editorially  and  apparently  authori 
tatively,  and  every  man  who  questions  any  of  them  is  denounced  as  an  Abo 
litionist,  a  Free-soiler,  a  fanatic.  The  propositions  are,  first,  that  the  primary 
object  of  all  government  at  its  original  institution  is  the  protection  of  person 
and  property ;  second,  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  declares  that 
the  citizens  of  each  state  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities 
of  citizens  in  the  several  states ;  and  that,  therefore,  thirdly,  all  state  laws, 
whether  organic  or  otherwise,  which  prohibit  the  citizens  of  one  state  from 
settling  in  another  with  their  slave  property,  and  especially  declaring  it  for 
feited,  are  direct  violations  of  the  original  intention  of  the  government  and 
Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  and,  fourth,  that  the  emancipation  of  the 
slaves  of  the  Northern  States  was  a  gross  outrage  on  the  rights  of  property, 
inasmuch  as  it  was  involuntarily  done  on  the  part  of  the  owner. 

Kemember  that  this  article  was  published  in  the  Union  on  the  17th  of  No 
vember,  and  on  the  18th  appeared  the  first  article  giving  the  adhesion  of  the 
Union  to  the  Lecompton  Constitution.  It  was  in  these  words: 

"KANSAS  AND  HER  CONSTITUTION. — The  vexed  question  is  settled.  The 
problem  is  solved.  The  dread  point  of  danger  is  passed.  All  serious  trouble 
to  Kansas  affairs  is  over  and  gone," 

and  a  column  nearly  of  the  same  sort.  Then,  when  you  come  to  look  into  the 
Lecompton  Constitution,  you  find  the  same  doctrine  incorporated  in  it  which 
was  put  forth  editorially  in  the  Union.  What  is  it  ? 

"ARTICLE  7,  Section  1.  The  right  of  property  is  before  and  higher  than 
any  constitutional  sanction ;  and  the  right  of  the  owner  of  a  slave  to  such 
slave  and  its  increase  is  the  same  and  as  inviolable  as  the  right  of  the  owner 
of  any  property  whatever." 

Then  in  the  schedule  is  a  provision  that  the  Constitution  may  be  amended 
after  1864:  by  a  two  thirds  vote, 

"  But  no  alteration  shall  be  made  to  affect  the  right  of  property  in  the  own 
ership  of  slaves." 

It  will  be  seen  by  these  clauses  in  the  Lecompton  Constitution  that  they  are 
identical  in  spirit  with  this  authoritative  article  in  the  Washington  Union  of 
the  day  previous  to  its  endorsement  of  this  Constitution,  and  every  man  is 
branded  as  a  Free-soiler  and  Abolitionist  who  does  not  subscribe  to  them. 
The  proposition  is  advanced  that  the  emancipation  acts  of  New  York,  of  New 
England,  of  Pennsylvania,  and  of  New  Jersey,  were  unconstitutional,  were 
outrages  upon  the  right  of  property,  were  violations  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  The  proposition  is  advanced  that  a  Southern  man  has  a  right 
to  move  from  South  Carolina,  with  his  negroes,  into  Illinois,  to  settle  there 
and  hold  them  there  as  slaves,  any  thing  in  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  Il 
linois  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  The  proposition  is,  that  a  citizen  of 
Virginia  has  rights  in  a  free  state  which  a  citizen  of  a  free  state  can  not  him 
self  have.  We  prohibit  ourselves  from  holding  slaves  within  our  own  limits, 
and  yet,  according  to  this  doctrine,  a  citizen  of  Kentucky  can  move  into  our 
state,  bring  in  one  hundred  slaves  with  him,  and  hold  them  as  such  in  defi 
ance  of  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  our  own  state.  If  that  proposition  is 
true,  the  creed  of  the  Democratic  party  is  false.  The  principle  of  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Bill  is,  that  "  each  state  and  each  Territory  shall  be  left  perfectly 
free  to  form  and  regulate  its  domestic  institutions  in  its  own  way,  subject  only 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States."  I  claim  that  Illinois  has  the  sov 
ereign  right  to  prohibit  slavery,  a  right  as  undeniable  as  that  the  sovereignty 
of  Virginia  may  authorize  its  existence.  We  have  the  same  right  to  prohibit 
it  that  you  have  to  recognize  and  protect  it.  Each  state  is  sovereign  within 
its  own  sphere  of  powers,  sovereign  in  respect  to  its  own  domestic  and  local 
institutions  and  internal  concerns.  So  long  as  you  regulate  your  local  insti 
tutions  to  suit  yourselves,  we  are  content ;  but  when  you  claim  the  right  to 


348  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

override  our  laws  and  our  Constitution,  and  deny  our  right  to  form  our  insti 
tutions  to  suit  ourselves,  I  protest  against  it.  The  same  doctrine  is  asserted 
in  this  Lecompton  Constitution.  There  it  is  stated  that  the  right  of  property 
in  slaves  is  "before  and  higher  than  any  constitutional  sanction." 

Mr.  President,  I  recognize  the  right  of  the  slaveholding  states  to  regulate 
their  local  institutions,  to  claim  the  services  of  their  slaves  under  their  own 
state  laws,  and  I  am  prepared  to  perform  each  and  every  one  of  my  obliga 
tions  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  in  respect  to  them ;  but  I 
do  not  admit,  and  I  do  not  think  they  are  safe  in  asserting,  that  their  right 
of  property  in  slaves  is  higher  than  and  above  constitutional  sanction,  is  inde 
pendent  of  constitutional  obligations.  When  you  rely  upon  the  Constitution 
and  upon  your  own  laws,  you  are  safe.  When  you  go  beyond  and  above  con 
stitutional  obligations,  I  know  not  where  your  safety  is.  If  this  doctrine  be 
true,  that  slavery  is  higher  than  the  Constitution,  and  above  the  Constitution, 
it  necessarily  follows  that  a  state  can  not  abolish  it,  can  not  prohibit  it,  and 
the  doctrine  of  the  Washington  Union,  that  the  emancipation  laws  were  out 
rages  on  the  rights  of  property  and  violations  of  the  Constitution,  becomes 
the  law. 

When  I  saw  that  article  in  the  Union  of  the  17th  of  November,  followed 
by  the  glorification  of  the  Lecompton  Constitution  on  the  18th  of  November, 
and  this  clause  in  the  Constitution  asserting  the  doctrine  that  no  state  has  a 
right  to  prohibit  slavery  within  its  limits,  I  saw  that  there  was  a  fatal  blow 
being  struck  at  the  sovereignty  of  the  states  of  this  Union,  a  death-blow  to 
state  rights,  subversive  of  the  Democratic  platform  and  of  the  principles  upon 
which  the  Democratic  party  have  ever  stood,  and  upon  which  I  trust  they  ever 
will  stand.  Because  of  these  extraordinary  doctrines,  I  declined  to  vote  for 
the  editor  of  the  Washington  Union  for  public  printer,  and  for  that  refusal, 
as  I  suppose,  I  have  been  read  out  of  the  party  by  the  editor  of  the  Union  at 
least  every  other  clay  from  that  time  to  this.  Sir,  I  submit  the  question : 
Who  has  deserted  the  Democratic  party  and  the  Democratic  platform — he  who 
stands  by  the  sovereign  rights  of  the  state  to  abolish  and  prohibit  slavery  as 
it  pleases,  or  he  who  attempts  to  strike  down  the  sovereignty  of  the  states, 
and  combine  all  power  in  one  central  government,  and  establish  an  empire  in 
stead  of  a  confederacy  ? 

The  principles  upon  which  the  presidential  campaign  of  1 85G  was  fought 
are  well  known  to  the  country.  At  least  in  Illinois  I  think  I  am  authorized 
to  state  that  they  were  with  clearness  and  precision,  so  far  as  the  Slavery 
question  is  concerned.  The  Democracy  of  Illinois  are  prepared  to  stand  on 
the  platform  upon  which  the  battle  of  1856  was  fought.  It  was, 

First.  The  migration  or  importation  of  negroes  into  the  country  having 
been  prohibited  since  1808,  never  again  to  be  renewed,  each  state  will  take 
care  of  its  own  colored  population. 

Second.  That  while  negroes  are  not  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and 
hence  not  entitled  to  political  equality  with  whites,  they  should  enjoy  all  the 
rights,  privileges,  and  immunities  which  they  are  capable  of  exercising,  con 
sistent  with  the  safety  and  welfare  of  the  community  where  they  live. 

Third.  That  each  state  and  Territory  must  judge  and  determine  for  itself 
of  the  nature  and  extent  of  its  rights  and  privileges. 

Fourth.  That  while  each  free  state  should  and  will  maintain  and  protect 
all  the  rights  of  the  slaveholding  states,  they  will,  each  for  itself,  maintain 
and  defend  its  sovereign  right  within  its  own  limits  to  form  and  regulate  their 
own  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States. 

Fifth.  That  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Buchanan's  letter  of  acceptance  of  the 
presidential  nomination,  the  Nebraska-Kansas  Act  does  no  more  than  give 
the  form  of  law  to  this  elementary  principle  of  self-government  when  it  de- 


THE  LECOMPTON  CONTKOVEKSY.  349 

clares  "that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a  state,  shall  decide  for 
themselves  whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their  limits." 

These  were  the  general  propositions  on  which  we  maintained  the  canvass 
on  the  Slavery  question — the  right  of  each  state  to  decide  for  itself;  that  a 
negro  should  have  such  rights  as  he  was  capable  of  enjoying,  and  could  en 
joy,  consistently  with  the  safety  and  welfare  of  society ;  and  that  each  state 
should  decide  for  itself  the  nature,  and  extent,  and  description  of  those  rights 
and  privileges.  Hence,  if  you  choose  in  North  Carolina  to  have  slaves,  it  is 
your  business,  and  not  ours.  If  we  choose  in  Illinois  to  prohibit  slavery,  it  is 
our  right,  and  you  must  not  interfere  with  it.  If  New  York  chooses  to  give 
privileges  to  the  negro  which  we  withhold,  it  is  her  right  to  extend  them,  but 
she  must  not  attempt  to  force  us  to  do  the  same  thing.  Let  each  state  take 
care  of  its  own  affairs,  mind  its  own  business,  and  let  its  neighbors  alone, 
then  there  will  be  peace  in  the  country.  Whenever  you  attempt  to  enforce 
uniformity,  and,  judging  that  a  peculiar  institution  is  good  for  you,  and  there 
fore  good  for  every  body  else,  try  to  enforce  it  on  every  body,  you  will  find  that 
there  will  be  resistance  to  the  demand.  Our  government  was  not  formed  on 
the  idea  that  there  was  to  be  uniformity  of  local  laws  or  local  institutions. 
It  was  founded  upon  the  supposition  that  there  must  be  diversity  and  variety 
in  the  institutions  and  laws.  Our  fathers  foresaw'  that  the  local  institutions 
which  would  suit  the  granite  hills  of  New  Hampshire  would  be  ill  adapted  to 
the  rice  plantations  of  South  Carolina.  They  foresaw  that  the  institutions 
which  would  be  well  adapted  to  the  mountains  and  valleys  of  Pennsylvania 
would  not  suit  the  plantation  interests  of  Virginia.  They  foresaw  that  the 
great  diversity  of  climate,  of  production,  of  interests,  Avould  require  a  corre 
sponding  diversity  of  local  laws  and  local  institutions.  For  this  reason  they 
provided  for  thirteen  separate  states,  each  with  a  separate  Legislature,  and 
each  state  sovereign  within  its  owTn  sphere,  with  the  right  to  make  all  its  local 
laws  and  local  institutions  to  suit  itself,  on  the  supposition  that  they  would 
be  as  different  and  as  diversified  as  the  number  of  states  themselves.  Then 
the  general  government  was  made,  with  a  Congress  having  limited  and  speci 
fied  powers,  extending  only  to  those  subjects  which  Averc  national  and  not 
local,  which  were  federal  and  not  state. 

These  were  the  principles  on  which  our  institutions  were  established. 
These  are  the  principles  on  which  the  Democratic  party  has  ever  fought  its 
battles.  This  attempt  now  to  establish  the  doctrine  that  a  free  state  has  no 
power  to  prohibit  slavery,  that  our  emancipation  acts  were  unconstitutional 
and  void,  that  they  were  outrages  on  the  rights  of  property,  that  slavery  is 
national  and. not  local,  that  it  goes  every  where  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  yet  is  higher  than  the  Constitution,  above  the  Constitu 
tion,  beyond  the  reach  of  sovereign  power,  existing  by  virtue  of  that  higher 
law  proclaimed  by  the  senator  from  New  York,  will  not  be  tolerated.  When 
the  doctrine  of  a  higher  law,  a  law  above  the  Constitution,  a  law  overriding 
the  Constitution,  and  imposing  obligations  upon  public  men  in  defiance  of 
the  Constitution,  was  first  proclaimed  in  the  Senate,  it  was  deemed  moral 
treason  in  this  body ;  but  now  I  am  read  out  of  the  party  three  times  a  week 
by  the  Washington  Union  for  disputing  this  higher  law,  which  is  embodied 
in  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  that  slavery,  the  right  to  slave  property,  does 
not  depend  upon  human  law  nor  constitutional  sanction,  but  is  above,  and  be 
yond,  and  before  all  constitutional  sanctions  and  obligations  !  I  feel  bound, 
as  a  senator  from  a  sovereign  state,  to  repudiate  and  rebuke  this  doctrine.  I 
am  bound  as  a  Democrat,  bound  as  an  American  citizen,  bound  as  a  senator 
claiming  to  represent  a  sovereign  state,  to  enter  my  protest,  and  the  protest 
of  my  constituency,  against  such  a  doctrine.  Whenever  such  a  doctrine 
shall  be  ingrafted  on  the  policy  of  this  country,  you  will  have  revolutionized 
the  government,  annihilated  the  sovereignty  of  the  states,  established  a  con- 


350  LIFE   OF    STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

solidated  despotism  with  uniformity  of  local  institutions,  and  that  uniform 
ity  being  slavery,  existing  by  Divine  right,  and  a  higher  law  beyond  the 
reach  of  the  Constitution  and  of  human  authority. 

Mr.  President,  if  my  protest  against  this  interpolation  into  the  policy  of 
this  country  or  the  creed  of  the  Democratic  party  is  to  bring  me  under  the 
ban,  I  am  ready  to  meet  the  issue.  I  am  told  that  this  Lecompton  Consti 
tution  is  a  party  test,  a  party  measure  ;  that  no  man  is  a  Demowat  who  does 
not  sanction  it,  who  does  not  vote  to  bring  Kansas  into  the  Union  with  the 
government  established  under  that  Constitution.  Sir,  who  made  it  a  party 
test  ?  Who  made  it  a  party  measure  ?  Certainly  the  party  has  not  assem 
bled  in  convention  to  ordain  any  such  thing  to  be  a  party  measure.  I  know 
of  but  one  state  convention  that  has  endorsed  it.  It  has  not  been  declared 
to  be  a  party  measure  by  state  conventions,  or  by  a  national  convention,  or 
by  a  senatorial  caucus,  or  by  a  caucus  of  the  Democratic  members  of  the 
House  of  Representatives.  How,  then,  came  it  to  be  a  party  measure  ?  The 
Democratic  party  laid  down  its  creed  at  its  last  national  convention.  That 
creed  is  unalterable  for  four  years,  according  to  the  rules  and  practices  of  the 
party.  Who  has  interpolated  this  Lecompton  Constitution  into  the  party 
platform  ? 

Oh !  but  we  are  told  it  is  an  administration  measure.  Because  it  is  an 
administration  measure,  does  it  therefore  follow  that  it  is  a  party  measure  ? 
Is  it  the  right  of  an  administration  to  declare  what  are  party  measures  and 
what  are  not  ?  That  has  been  attempted  heretofore,  and  it  has  failed.  When 
John  Tyler  prescribed  a  creed  to  the  Whig  party,  his  right  to  do  so  was  not 
respected.  When  a  certain  doctrine  in  regard  to  the  neutrality  laws  was 
proclaimed  to  be  a  party  measure,  my  friends  around  me  here  considered  it 
a  "  grave  error,"  and  it  was  not  respected.  When  the  Army  Bill  was  pro 
claimed  an  administration  measure,  the  authority  to  make  it  so  was  put  at 
defiance,  and  the  Senate  rejected  it  by  a  vote  of  four  to  one,  and  the  House 
of  Representatives  voted  it  down  by  an  overwhelming  majority.  Is  the 
Pacific  Railroad  Bill  a  party  measure  ?  I  should  like  to  see  whether  the 
guillotine  is  to  be  applied  to  every  recreant  Democrat  who  does  not  come  up 
to  that  test.  Is  the  Bankrupt  Law  a  party  measure  ?  We  shall  see,  when 
the  vote  is  taken,  how  many  renegades  there  will  be  then.  Was  the  Loan 
Bill  an  administration  measure  or  a  party  measure  ?  Is  the  guillotine  to  be 
applied  to  every  one  who  does  not  yield  implicit  obedience  to  the  behests  of 
an  administration  in  power  ?  There  is  infinitely  more  plausibility  in  declar 
ing  each  of  the  measures  to  which  I  have  just  alluded  to  be  an  administration 
measure,  than  in  declaring  the  Lecompton  Constitution  to  be  such.  By  what 
right  does  the  administration  take  cognizance  of  the  Lecompton  Constitu 
tion  ? 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  says  that  "new  states  may  be  ad 
mitted  into  the  Union  by  the  Congress" — not  by  the  President,  not  by  the 
cabinet,  not  by  the  administration.  The  Lecompton  Constitution  itself  says, 
"This  Constitution  shall  be  submitted  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
at  its  next  session ;"  not  to  the  President,  not  to  the  cabinet,  not  to  the  ad 
ministration.  The  convention  in  Kansas  did  not  send  it  to  the  administra 
tion,  did  not  authorize  it  to  be  sent  to  the  President,  but  directed  it  to  be 
sent  to  Congress  ;  and  the  President  of  the  United  States  only  got  hold  of  it 
through  the  commission  of  the  surveyor  general,  who  was  also  president  of 
the  Leeompton  Convention.  The  Constitution  as  made  was  ordered  to  be 
sent  directly  to  Congress ;  Congress  having  power  to  admit  states,  and  the 
President  having  nothing  to  do  with  it.  The  moment  you  pass  a  law  ad 
mitting  a  state,  it  executes  itself.  It  is  not  a  law  to  be  executed  by  the 
President  or  by  the  administration.  It  is  the  last  measure  on  earth  that 
could  be  rightfully  made  an  administration  measure.  It  is  not  usual  for  the 


THE  LECOMPTON  CONTROVERSY.  351 

Constitution  of  a  new  state  to  come  to  Congress  through  the  hand  of  the  Pres 
ident.  True,  the  Minnesota  Constitution  was  sent  to  the  President  because 
the  Convention  of  Minnesota  directed  it  to  be  so  sent,  and  the  President  sub 
mitted  it  to  us  without  any  recommendation.  Because  senators  and  repre 
sentatives  do  not  yield  their  judgments  and  their  consciences,  and  bow  in  ab 
ject  obedience  to  the  requirements  of  an  administration  in  regard  to  a  meas- 
iire  on  which  the  administration  are  not  required  to  act  at  all,  a  system  of 
proscription,  of  persecution  is  to  be  adopted  against  every  man  who  maintains 
his  self-respect,  his  own  judgment,  and  his  own  conscience. 

I  do  not  recognize  the  right  of  the  President  or  his  cabinet,  no  matter 
what  my  respect  may  be  for  them,  to  tell  me  my  duty  in  the  Senate  Cham 
ber.  The  President  has  his  duties  to  perform  under  the  Constitution,  and 
he  is  responsible  to  his  constituency.  A  senator  has  his  duties  to  perform 
here  under  the  Constitution  and  according  to  his  oath,  and  he  is  responsible 
to  the  sovereign  state  which  he  represents  as  his  constituency.  A  member 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  has  his  duties  under  the  Constitution  and 
his  oath,  and  he  is  responsible  to  the  people  that  elected  him.  The  Presi 
dent  has  no  more  right  to  prescribe  tests  to  senators  than  senators  have  to  the 
President ;  the  President  has  no  more  right  to  prescribe  tests  to  the  repre 
sentatives  than  the  representatives  have  to  the  President.  Suppose  we  here 
should  attempt  to  prescribe  a  test  of  faith  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  would  he  not  rebuke  our  impertinence  and  impudence  as  subversive 
of  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  Constitution  ?  Would  he  not  tell  us 
that  the  Constitution,  and  his  oath,  and  his  conscience  were  his  guide  ;  that 
we  must  perform  our  duties,  and  he  would  perform  his,  and  let  each  be  re 
sponsible  to  his  own  constituency  ? 

Sir,  whenever  the  time  comes  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  can 
change  the  allegiance  of  the  senators  from  the  states  to  himself,  Avhat  be 
comes  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  states  ?  When  the  time  comes  that  a  sena 
tor  is  to  account  to  the  executive  and  not  to  his  state,  whom  does  he  repre 
sent  ?  If  the  will  of  my  state  is  one  way  and  the  will  of  the  President  is  the 
other,  am  I  to  be  told  that  I  must  obey  the  executive  and  betray  my  state, 
or  else  be  branded  as  a  traitor  to  the  party,  and  hunted  down  by  all  the 
newspapers  that  share  the  patronage  of  the  government  ?  and  every  man 
who  holds  a  petty  office  in  any  part  of  my  state  to  have  the  question  put  to 
him,  "  Are  you  Douglas's  enemy  ?"  if  not,  "  your  head  comes  off?"  Why? 
"  Because  he  is  a  recreant  senator ;  because  he  chooses  to  follow  his  judg 
ment  and  his  conscience,  and  represent  his  state  instead  of  obeying  my  exec 
utive  behest."  I  should  like  to  know  what  is  the  use  of  Congresses  ;  what 
is  the  use  of  Senates  and  Houses  of  Representatives,  when  their  highest  duty 
is  to  obey  the  executive  in  disregard  of  the  wishes,  rights,  and  honor  of  their 
constituents  ?  What- despotism  on  earth  would  be  equal  to  this,  if  you  estab 
lish  the  doctrine  that  the  executive  has  a  right  to  command  the  votes,  the 
consciences,  the  judgment  of  the  senators  and  of  the  representatives,  instead 
of  their  constituents  ?  In  old  England,  whose  oppressions  we  thought  intol 
erable,  an  administration  is  hurled  from  power  in  an  hour  when  voted  down 
by  the  representatives  of  the  people  upon  a  government  measure.  If  the 
rule  of  old  England  applied  here,  this  cabinet  would  have  gone  out  of  office 
when  the  Army  Bill  was  voted  down,  the  other  day,  in  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives.  There,  in  that  monarchical  country,  where  they  have  a  queen  by 
divine  right,  and  lords  by  the  grace  of  God,  "and  where  Republicanism  is 
supposed  to  have  but  a  slight  foothold,  the  representatives  of  the  people  can 
check  the  throne,  restrain  the  government,  change  the  ministry,  and  give  a 
new  direction  to  the  policy  of  the  government,  without  being  accountable  to 
the  king  or  the  queen.  There  the  representatives  of  the  people  afe  respon 
sible  to  their  constituents.  Across  the  Channel,  under  Louis  Napoleon,  it 


352  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

may  be  otherwise ;  yet  I  doubt  whether  it  would  be  so  boldly  proclaimed 
there  that  a  man  is  a  traitor  for  daring  to  vote  according  to  his  sense  of 
duty,  according  to  the  will  of  his  state,  according  to  the  interests  of  his  con 
stituents. 

Suppose  the  executive  should  tell  the  senator  from  California  [Mr.  Gwin] 
to  vote  against  his  Pacific  Kailroad  Bill ;  would  he  obey  ?  If  not,  he  will  be 
deemed  a  rebel.  Suppose  the  executive  should  tell  the  senator  from  Virginia 
[Mr.  Mason]  to  vote  for  the  Pacific  Railroad  Bijl,  or  the  senator  from  Geor 
gia  [Mr.  Toombs]  to  vote  for  the  Army  Bill,  or  the  senator  from  Mississippi 
[Mr.  Brown]  to  sustain  him  on  the  Neutrality  Laws,  we  should  have  more 
rebels  and  more  traitors.  But  it  is  said  a  dispensation  is  granted  from  the 
fountain  of  all  power  for  rebellion  on  all  subjects  but  one.  The  President 
says,  in  eifect,  "  Do  as  you  please  on  all  questions  but  one ;"  that  one  is  Le- 
compton.  On  what  principle  is  it  that  we  must  not  judge  for  ourselves  on 
this  measure,  and  may  on  every  thing  else  ?  I  suppose  it  is  on  the  old  adage 
that  a  man  needs  no  friends  when  he  knows  he  is  right,  and  he  only  wants 
his  friends  to  stand  by  him  when  he  is  wrong.  The  President  says  that  he 
regrets  this  Constitution  was  not  submitted  to  the  people,  although  he  knows 
that  if  it  had  been  submitted  it  would  have  been  rejected.  Hence  the  Presi 
dent  regrets  that  it  was  not  rejected.  Would  he  regret  that  it  was  not  sub 
mitted  and  rejected  if  he  did  not  think  it  was  wrong  ?  And  yet  he  demands 
our  assistance  in  forcing  it  on  an  unwilling  people,  and  threatens  vengeance 
on  all  who  refuse  obedience.  He  recommends  the  Army  Bill ;  he  thinks  it 
necessary  to  carry  on  the  Mormon  wrar  ;  it  is  necessary  to  carry  out  a  meas 
ure  of  the  administration,  and  hence  it  is  an  administration  measure ;  but  he 
does  not  quarrel  with  any  body  for  voting  against  it.  He  thinks  every  one 
of  the  other  recommendations  to  which  I  have  alluded  is  right,  and,  there 
fore,  there  is  no  harm  in  going  against  them.  The  only  harm  is  in  going 
against  that  which  the  President  acknowledges  to  be  wrong ;  and  yet  the 
system  of  proscription,  to  subdue  men  to  abject  obedience  to  executive  will, 
is  to  be  pursued. 

Is  it  seriously  intended  to  brand  every  Democrat  in  the  United  States  as  a 
traitor  who  is  opposed  to  the  Lecompton  Constitution  ?  If  so,  do  your  friends 
in  Pennsylvania  desire  any  traitors  to  vote  with  them  next  fall  ?  We  are 
traitors  if  we  vote  against  Lecompton,  our  constituents  are  traitors  if  they  do 
not  think  Lecompton  is  right,  and  yet  you  expect  those  whom  you  call  trai 
tors  to  vote  with  and  sustain  you.  Are  you  to  read  out  of  the  party  every 
man  who  thinks  it  wrong  to  force  a  Constitution  on  a  people  against  their 
will  ?  If  so,  what  will  be  the  size  of  the  administration  party  in  New  York  ? 
what  will  it  be  in  Pennsylvania  ?  how  many  will  it  number  in  Ohio,  or  in 
Indiana,  or  in  Illinois,  or  in  any  other  Northern  state  ?  Surely  you  do  not 
expect  the  support  of  those  whom  vou  brand  as  renegades  ?  Would  it  not  be 
well  to  allow  all  freemen  freedom  of  thought,  freedom  of  speech,  and  freedom 
of  action  ?  Would  it  not  be  well  to  allow  each  senator  and  representative  to 
vote  according  to  his  judgment,  and  perform  his  duty  according  to  his  own 
sense  of  his  obligation  to  himself,  and  to  his  state,  and  to  his  God  ? 

For  my  own  part,  Mr.  President,  come  what  may,  I  intend  to  vote,  speak, 
and  act  according  to  my  own  sense  of  duty  so  long  as  I  hold  a  seat  in  this 
chamber.  I  have  no  defense  of  my  Democracy.  I  have  no  professions  to 
make  of  my  fidelity.  I  have  no  vindication  to  make  of  my  course.  Let  it 
speak  for  itself.  The  insinuation  that  I  am  acting  with  the  Republicans  or 
Americans  has  no  terror,  and  will  not  drive  me  from  my  duty  or  propriety. 
It  is  an  argument  for  which  I  have  no  respect.  When  I  saw  the  senator 
from  Virginia  acting  with  the  Republicans  on  the  Neutrality  Laws,  in  sup 
port  of  the  President,  I  did  not  feel  it  to  be  my  duty  to  taunt  him  with  voting 
with  those  to  whom  be  happened  to  be  opposed  in  general  politics.  When 


THE  LECOMPTON  CONTROVERSY.  353 

I  saw  the  senator  from  Georgia  acting  with  the  Republicans  on  the  Army 
Bill,  it  did  not  impair  my  confidence  in  his  fidelity  to  principle.  When  I 
see  senators  here  every  day  acting  with  the  Republicans  on  various  questions, 
it  only  shows  me  that  they  have  independence  and  self-respect  enough  to  go 
according  to  their  own  convictions  of  duty,  without  being  influenced  by  the 
course  of  others. 

I  have  no  professions  to  make  upon  any  of  these  points.  I  intend  to  per 
form  my  duty  in  accordance,  with  my  own  convictions.  Neither  the  frowns 
of  power  nor  the  mttuencc  of  patronage  Avill  change  my  action,  or  drive  me 
from  my  principles.  I  stand  firmly,  immovably  upon  those  great  principles 
of  self-government  and  state  sovereignty  upon  which  the  campaign  was  fought 
and  the  election  won.  I  stand  by  the  time-honored  principles  of  the  Demo 
cratic  party,  illustrated  by  Jefferson  and  Jackson — those  principles  of  state 
rights,  of  state  sovereignty,  of  strict  construction,  on  which  the  great  Demo 
cratic  party  has  ever  stood.  I  will  stand  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  with  all  its  compromises,  and  perform  all  my  obligations  under  it.  I 
will  stand  by  the  American  Union  as  it  exists  under  the  Constitution.  If, 
standing  firmly  by  my  principles,  I  shall  be  driven  into  private  life,  it  is  a  fate 
that  has  no  terrors  for  me.  I  prefer  private  life,  preserving  my  own  self-re 
spect  and  manhood,  to  abject  and  servile  submission  to  executive  will.  If 
the  alternative  be  private  life  or  servile  obedience  to  executive  will,  I  am  pre 
pared  to  retire.  Official  position  has  no  charms  for  me  when  deprived  of 
that  freedom  of  thought  and  action  which  becomes  a  gentleman  and  a  senator. 

Mr.  President,  I  owe  an  apology  to  the  Senate  for  the  desultory  manner 
in  which  I  have  discussed  this  question.  My  health  has  been  so  feeble  for 
some  time  past  that  I  have  not  been  able  to  arrange  my  thoughts,  or  the  order 
in  which  they  should  be  presented.  If,  in  the  heat  of  debate,  I  have  ex 
pressed  a  sentiment  which  would  seem  to  be  unkind  or  disrespectful  to  any 
senator,  I  shall  regret  it.  While  I  intend  to  maintain,  firmly  and  fearlessly, 
my  own  views,  far  be  it  from  me  to  impugn  the  motives  or  question  the  pro 
priety  of  the  action  of  any  other  senator.  I  take  it  for  granted  that  each 
senator  will  obey  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience,  and  will  be  accountable 
to  his  constituents  for  the  course  which  he  may  think  proper  to  pursue. 

On  the  1st  of  April  the  bill  was  taken  up  in  the. House. 
The  House  refused — yeas  95,  nays  137 — to  reject  the  bill. 

Mr.  Montgomery,  of  Pennsylvania,  moved  to  strike  out  all 
after  the  enacting  clause,  and  to  insert  the  same  amendment 
proposed  by  Mr.  Crittenden  in  the  Senate.  That  amendment 
was  agreed  to — yeas  120,  nays  112 — and,  as  amended,  the  bill 
was  passed  by  the  same  vote. 

The  next  day  (April  2)  the  Senate — yeas  32,  nays  23 — re 
fused  to  concur  in  the  amendment  made  by  the  House.  On 
the  8th  the  House — yeas  119,  nays  111 — voted  to  "  adhere"  to 
their  amendment.  On  the  13th  the  Senate  "insisted"  on  its 
disagreement,  and  asked  for  a  committee  of  conference.  On 
the  14th  Mr.  Montgomery  moved  that  the  House  "  adhere,"  and 
Mr.  English,  of  Indiana,  moved  that  the  House  appoint  a  com 
mittee  of  conference.  The  vote  on  the  last  motion  was — yeas 
108,  nays  108 ;  the  speaker  voting  in  the  affirmative,  the  mo 
tion  was  agreed  to.  The  committees  were  appointed — Messrs. 


354  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

Green,  Hunter,  and  Seward  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  and  En 
glish,  Stephens,  and  Howard  on  the  part  of  the  House.  This 
committee  reported  to  the  House  on  the  23d  what  is  known 
as  the  "  English  Bill,"  and  on  the  4th  of  May  the  House,  by  a 
vote  of  yeas  112,  nays  103,  concurred  in  the  report  of  the  com 
mittee  of  conference,  and  the  Senate,. by  the  vote  of  all  the 
friends  of  the  original  bill,  did  the  same.  The*English  Bill  be 
came  the  law.  Its  fate  before  the  people  of  Kansas  is  well 
known.  Thus  ended  the  Lecompton  controversy  in  Congress. 
Happy  for  the  best  interests  of  the  country  would  it  have 
been  had  it  been  allowed  to  reach  its  end  without  the  bitter 
ness  that  attended  its  progress.  We  will  notice  no  farther  at 
this  time  the  assaults  upon  Mr.  Douglas  than  to  refer,  as  an  ex 
ample  of  the  violence  to  which  excited  feelings  led  some  men,  to 
an  article — leading  editorial — in  the  Washington  Union  in  the 
early  part  of  March,  in  which  it  was  demonstrated  to  the  writ 
er's  entire  satisfaction  that  no  man  of  small  physical  stature 
could  be  a  true  Democrat  at  heart ;  and  that  R.  J.  Walker  and 
S.  A.  Douglas  were  so  constructed  physically  that  it  was  nat 
urally  impossible  for  either  of  them  to  be  a  Democrat !  In 
this  struggle  Mr.  Douglas  was  heartily  sustained  and  support 
ed  to  the  end  by  his  Democratic  colleagues  in  the  House, 
Messrs.  Harris,  Marshall,  Morris,  Shaw,  and  Smith. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

INTERNAL   IMPROVEMENTS. 

MR.  DOUGLAS,  during  his  entire  political  life,  has  agreed 
with  the  Democratic  party  in  resisting  any  general  system  of 
internal  improvements  by  the  federal  government.  That  hos 
tility  to  a  general  system  of  internal  improvements  has  been 
expressed  over  and  over  again  in  the  platforms  of  the  Demo 
cratic  party,  and  has  had  no  warmer  defender  than  Mr.  Doug 
las.  IJpon  some  points,  however,  such  as  the  improvements 
of  rivers  and  harbors,  he  has  had  opinions  somewhat  peculiar. 
He  has  endeavored  throughout  to  discriminate  between  those 
works  which  were  essential  to  the  protection  of  commerce  and 
the  improvement  \of  the  navigable  waters  of  the  country,  and 
those  other  works  asked  for  by  parties  having  local  interests 
to  serve,  and  desirous  to  promote  them  at  the  expense  of  the 


INTERNAL   IMPROVEMENTS.  355 

federal  treasury.  Mr.  Douglas  voted  pretty  generally  for  all 
the  River  and  Harbor  Appropriation  Bills,  always  protesting 
against  such  items  as  were  included  in  them  that  did  not  come 
up  to  his  idea  of  justice  or  propriety.  He  was  thus  often  com 
pelled  to  vote  for  a  number  of  small  appropriations  for  what 
he  deemed  inappropriate  works,  or  vote  against  others  that 
were  eminently  just  and  proper.  He  has  uniformly  protested 
against  that  system  of  legislation  which  compelled  him  thus  to 
vote  against  what  was  right,  or  vote  for  others  that  did  not 
meet  his  approval. 

RIVER   AND    HARBOR   IMPROVEMENTS. 

His  effort  has  been  always  to  break  up  this  irregular,  incom 
plete,  and  unsatisfactory  mode  of  legislating  upon  this  import 
ant  subject.  The  appropriations  even  for  the  most  needful 
works  had  been  so  irregular  and  so  often  interrupted  that  the 
works  constructed  in  one  season  under  a  partial  appropriation 
wrould  frequently  be  destroyed  or  rendered  valueless  before 
the  additional  sum  wras  appropriated.  To  remedy  these  evils, 
he  has  always  urged  that  Congress  would  adopt  some  regular 
system  under  which  these  works  could  be  safely,  intelligently, 
and  profitably  carried  on.  All  efforts  of  that  kind,  however, 
failed  in  Congress,  where  local  interests  could  not  be  recon 
ciled  to  any  plan  that  did  not  include  them. 

In  1852,  when  the  River  and  Harbor  Bill  was  under  consid 
eration  in  the  Senate,  Mr.  Douglas,  who  supported  the  bill, 
proposed  to  add  to  it  three  sections,  having  for  their  object 
the  recognition  and  establishment  of  such  works  as  the  busi 
ness  and  interests  of  the  country  would  demand.  His  amend 
ment  proposed  to  grant  the  consent  of  Congress  to  all  the 
states,  and  that  the  several  states  might  authorize  the  authori 
ties  of  any  city  or  town  within  their  respective  limits,  which 
might  be  situated  on  the  Atlantic  or  Pacific  coasts,  or  on  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico,  or  on  the  banks  of  any  bay  or  arm  of  the  sea 
connecting  therewith,  or  on  the  shores  of  Lakes  Champlain, 
Ontario,  Erie,  St.  Clair,  Huron,  Michigan,  or  Superior,  or  on 
the  banks  of  any  bay  or  arm  of  the  lake  connecting  with  either 
of  said  lakes,  to  levy  duties  of  tonnage,  not  exceeding  ten  cents 
per  ton,  upon  boats  and  vessels  of  every  description  entering 
the  harbor  or  waters  within  the  limits  of  such  city  or  town, 
the  funds  to  be  derived  from  said  duties  to  be  expended  ex- 


356  LIFE    OP   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

clusively  in  constructing,  enlarging,  deepening,  improving,  and 
securing  safe  and  commodious  harbors  and  entrances  thereto 
at  such  cities  and  towns ;  the  duties  thus  levied  and  collected 
not  to  exceed  the  amount  necessary  for  the  purpose  for  which 
they  were  levied.  It  also  granted  the  consent  of  Congress 
that,  where  several  states  bordered  on  a  lake,  such  states  might 
enter  into  an  agreement  by  which  a  portion  of  the  fund  raised 
by  tonnage  duties  in  all  the  cities  and  towns  within  their 
limits  might  be  applied  to  such  works  as  should  be  deemed 
necessary  to  improve  and  render  safe  and  convenient  the  navi 
gation  of  the  lakes,  and  of  the  rivers  and  channels  connecting 
them  together ;  these  works  to  be  the  deepening  of  the  chan 
nels,  or  artificial  channels  to  be  constructed  for  that  purpose. 
When  canals  or  artificial  channels  should  be  thus  constructed, 
only  such  tolls  should  be  levied  as  would  be  necessary  to  keep 
them  in  repair.  His  amendment  farther  granted  the  consent 
of  Congress  that,  in  all  cases  where  any  navigable  river  or 
water  might  be  situated,  wholly  or  in  part,  within  the  limits 
of  any  state,  the  Legislature  of  such  state  might  provide  for 
the  improvement  of  the  navigation  of  such  river  within  its  own 
limits,  by  the  collection  of  a  tonnage  duty  upon  all  boats  and 
vessels  navigating  the  same.  And  where  a  navigable  river  or 
water  might  form  the  boundary  of  any  two  or  more  states, 
such  states  might,  by  joint  action  and  agreement,  provide  for 
the  collection  of  tonnage  duties,  to  be  applied  exclusively  to 
the  improvement  of  the  navigation  of  such  river  or  navigable 
water. 

This  was  substantially  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Douglas.  It 
was  offered,  not  as  a  substitute  for  the  pending  Appropriation 
Bill,  but  as  an  addition  thereto.  It  was  intended  as  a  consent 
on  the  part  of  Congress  that  each  state  that  felt  disposed  to 
do  so  might  go  on  at  once  and  provide  the  means  for  putting 
her  harbors  in  good  order,  her  streams  in  proper  condition,  and 
her  channels  in  a  safe  and  proper  state.  It  was  to  throw  open 
to  the  enterprise  and  public  spirit  of  each  community  the  com 
merce  of  the  country.  Instead  of  subjecting  each  city  on  the 
lake  to  the  most  uncertain  chances  in  the  lottery  of  Congres 
sional  appropriations  for  harbor  improvements,  it  proposed  to 
give  the  assent  of  Congress,  as  required  by  the  Constitution, 
to  each  city  to  go  on  and  make  her  own  harbor.  If  two  cities 
on  the  lake,  having  equal  chances  for  a  good  lake  traffic,  should 


INTERNAL   IMPKOVEMENTS.  357 

both  have  their  harbors  improved  by  the  federal  government, 
there  would  be  no  cause  of  complaint.  If,  however,  Congress 
interfered,  and  gave  the  money  to  improve  one  harbor  and  re 
fused  it  for  the  other,  it  was  a  discrimination  in  favor  of  the 
one  city  and  against  the  other  that  would  be  most  unjust  and 
oppressive.  It  would  be  the  interference  by  the  federal  gov 
ernment  to  build  up  one  city  and  break  down  the  other,  out 
of  a  treasury  upon  which  both  had  an  equality  of  claim.  If 
this  policy  would  have  been  so  unjust  where  there  were  only 
two  cities,  how  much  more  so  was  it  unjust  when  Congress 
would  select  one  or  two  harbors  on  a  lake,  appropriate  money 
for  their  improvement,  and  leave  a  score  of  others,  equally  needy, 
wholly  unprovided  for.  Such  has  been  and  such  must  ever  be 
the  practical  operation  of  the  existing  system. 

Mr.  Douglas  proposed  to  throw  open  the  doors  in  the  man 
ner  provided  in  the  Constitution,  and  allow  each  community 
to  improve  its  own  harbor ;  to  let  competition  and  commercial 
enterprise  decide  the  question  of  commercial  consequence.  If 
one  town  made  a  good  harbor,  and  drew  to  it  a  commerce  that 
might  have  gone  elsewhere  had  the  harbor  not  been  put  in 
proper  order,  then  that  was  an  advantage  and  a  success  to 
which  such  town  was  entitled,  and  which  its  commercial  spirit 
fairly  merited.  If  another  town  failed  to  improve  its  harbor, 
and  thus  lost  a  trade  and  commerce  that  it  would  have  other 
wise  enjoyed,  it  was  a  consequence  fairly  following  its  omis 
sion  to  do  its  duty.  Why  should  the  federal  treasury  be  em 
ployed  to  build  up  the  commerce  of  one  point  and  not  the  oth 
er  ?  Why  should  the  federal  government  interpose  its  weight 
and  its  money  for  one  city  in  its  contest  with  a  rival  city? 
The  strongest,  and,  indeed,  only  plausible  argument  urged 
against  this  proposal  was  that  it  imposed  a  tax  upon  the  navi 
gating  interest.  The  objection  is  only  plausible — it  has  no 
value  in  reality.  All  duties,  whether  upon  imports,  port  du 
ties,  tolls,  freights,  insurance,  or  otherwise,  are  a  tax  :  not  a 
tax  upon  the  importer  or  shipper,  manufacturer  or  producer, 
but  upon  the  consumer.  The  consumer  eventually  pays  all  the 
tax  imposed  upon  articles  of  merchandise.  If  the  tax  upon  a 
barrel  of  flour  from  Chicago  to  New  York  be  fifty  cents  or  two 
dollars,  the  tax  is  eventually  paid  by  the  consumer.  If  a  tax 
of  five  cents  per  ton  be  levied  upon  all  vessels  passing  the  St. 
Clair  River,  that  tax  must  eventually  be  added  to  the  cost  of 


358  LIFE    OP   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

the  merchandise  carried  in  said  vessels.  The  amount  now  paid 
for  insurance  upon  vessels  and  merchandise  passing  that  river 
is  a  tax  imposed  upon  the  articles  shipped  for  the  trip.  If,  in 
stead  of  paying  that  tax  in  the  shape  of  extra  insurance  be 
cause  of  the  wretched  condition  of  that  great  commercial  high 
way,  it  was  applied  to  the  deepening  and  improvement  of  the 
river,  it  is  doubtful,  very  doubtful,  whether  in  five  years  the 
public  would  be  subjected  to  an  aggregate  tax  equal  to  that  to 
which  they  are  now  subjected  in  the  shape  of  extra  insurance, 
loss  of  property,  delay  in  receipt  of  goods,  and  all  the  other 
innumerable  delays  resulting  from  the  dangerous  and  often  im 
passable  condition  of  that  stream.  The  money  expended  now 
by  the  general  government  for  purposes  of  river  and  harbor 
improvement  is  a  tax — a  tax  mainly  collected  from  the  con 
sumers  of  foreign  imports.  The  same  amount  of  money  col 
lected  from  those  communities  benefited  by  the  work,  and  ap 
plied  under  their  own  direction,  would  accomplish  ten-fold  the 
good  now  accomplished.  If  this  system  were  made  general, 
people  on  the  lakes  would  not  be  taxed  for  the  improvement 
of  harbors  and  rivers  on  the  Atlantic,  and  the  friends  of  the 
Savannah  and  Cape  Fear  River  improvements  might  do  all 
that  they  desire,  and  have  no  cause  of  complaint  on  account  of 
the  money  lavished  upon  lake  harbors  and  river  improvements 
in  the  West. 

Mr.  Douglas  supported  his  proposition  in  a  very  earnest 
speech,  in  which  he  argued  the  constitutional  question,  and 
the  legislative  history  of  river  and  harbor  appropriations.  It 
met  with  decided  opposition  in  debate ;  and  as  it  was  intended 
at  that  time  merely  as  an  index  of  what  he  should  propose 
when  Congress  would  eventually,  as  he  supposed,  be  forced  to 
adopt  some  plan  or  system  upon  the  subject,  he  did  not  press 
it,  but  allowed  it  to  drop. 

Subsequently,  in  January,  1854,  he  addressed  a  letter  to  the 
Governor  of  Illinois  upon  the  subject,  which  letter  embodies  in 
a  brief  form  some  of  the  reasons  inducing  him  to  favor  that 
plan  of  providing  for  the  improvement  of  rivers  and  harbors. 
The  following  is  his 

LETTER   TO    GOVERNOR   MATTESON. 

Washington,  January  2d,  1854. 

SIR, — I  learn  from  the  public  press  that  you  have  under  consideration  the 
proposition  to  convene  the  Legislature  in  special  session.  In  the  event  such 


INTERNAL   IMPROVEMENTS.  359 

a  step  shall  be  demanded  by  the  public  voice  and  necessities,  I  desire  to  in 
vite  your  attention  to  a  subject  of  great  interest  to  our  people,  which  may 
require  legislative  action.  I  refer  to  the  establishment  of  some  efficient  and 
permanent  system  for  river  and  harbor  improvements.  Those  portions  of 
the  Union  most  deeply  interested  in  internal  navigation  naturally  feel  that 
their  interests  have  been  neglected,  if  not  paralyzed,  by  an  uncertain,  vacil 
lating,  and  partial  policy.  Those  who  reside  upon  the  banks  of  the  Missis 
sippi,  or  on  the  shores  of  the  great  Northern  Lakes,  and  whose  lives  and 
property  are  frequently  exposed  to  the  mercy  of  the  elements  for  want  of 
harbors  of  refuge  and  means  of  safety,  have  never  been  able  to  comprehend 
the  force  of  that  distinction  between  fresh  and  salt  water,  which  affirms  the 
power  and  duty  of  Congress,  under  the  Constitution,  to  provide  security  to 
navigation  so  far  as  the  tide  ebbs  and  flows,  and  denies  the  existence  of  the 
right  beyond  the  tidal  mark.  Our  lawyers  may  have  read  in  English  books 
that,  by  the  common  law,  all  waters  were  deemed  navigable  so  far  as  the 
tide  extended  and  no  farther ;  but  they  should  also  have  learned  from  the 
same  authority  that  the  law  was  founded  upon  reason,  and  where  the  reason 
failed  the  rule  ceased  to  exist.  In  England,  where  they  have  neither  lake 
nor  river,  nor  other  water  which  is,  in  fact,  navigable,  except  where  the  tide 
rolls  its  briny  wave,  it  was  natural  that  the  law  should  conform  to  the  fact, 
and  establish  that  as  a  rule  which  the  experience  of  all  men  proved  to  be 
founded  in  truth  and  reason.  But  it  may  well  be  questioned  whether,  if 
the  common  law  had  originated  on  the  shores  of  Lake  Michigan — a  vast 
inland  sea  with  an  average  depth  of  six.  hundred  feet — it  would  have  been 
deemed  "not  navigable,"  merely  because  the  tide  did  not  flow,  and  the  wa 
ter  was  fresh  and  well  adapted  to  the  uses  and  necessities  of  man.  We 
therefore  feel  authoi'ized  to  repudiate,  as  unreasonable  and  unjust,  all  inju 
rious  discrimination  predicated  upon  salt  water  and  tidal  arguments,  and  to 
insist  that  if  the  power  of  Congress  to  protect  navigation  has  any  existence  in 
the  Constitution,  it  reaches  every  portion  of  this  Union  where  the  water  is  in 
fact  navigable,  and  only  ceases  where  the  fact  fails  to  exist.  This  power  has 
been  affirmed  in  some  form,  and  exercised  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  by 
each  successive  Congress  and  every  administration  since  the  adoption  of  the 
federal  Constitution.  All  acts  of  Congress  providing  for  the  erection  of  light 
houses,  the  placing  of  buoys,  the  construction  of  piers,  the  removal  of  snags, 
the  dredging  of  channels,  the  inspection  of  steam-boat  boilers,  the  carrying 
of  life-boats — in  short,  all  enactments  for  the  security  of  navigation,  and  the 
safety  of  life  and  property  within  our  navigable  waters,  assert  the  existence 
of  this  power  and  the  propriety  of  its  exercise  in  some  form. 

The  great  and  growing  interest  of  navigation  is  too  important  to  be  over 
looked  or  disregarded.  Mere  negative  action  will  not  answer.  The  irregu 
lar  and  vacillating  policy  which  has  marked  our  legislation  upon  this  sub 
ject  is  ruinous.  Whenever  appropriations  have  been  proposed  for  river  and 
harbor  improvements,  and  especially  on  the  Northern  lakes  and  the  Western 
rivers,  there  has  usually  been  a  death-struggle  and  a  doubtful  issue.  We 
have  generally  succeeded  with  an  appropriation  once  in  four  or  five  years ;  in 
other  words,  we  have,  upon  an  average,  been  beaten  about  four  times  out  of 
five  in  one  house  of  Congress  or  the  other,  or  both,  or  by  the  presidential 
veto.  When  we  did  succeed,  a  large  portion  of  the  appropriation  was  ex 
pended  in  providing  dredging-machines  and  snag-boats,  and  other  necessary 
machinery  and  implements ;  and  by  the  time  the  work  was  fairly  begun,  the 
appropriation  was  exhausted,  and  farther  operations  suspended.  Failing  to 
procure  an  additional  appropriation  at  the  next  session,  and  perhaps  for  two, 
three,  or  four  successive  sessions,  the  administration  has  construed  the  re 
fusal  of  Congress  to  provide  the  funds  for  the  prosecution  of  the  works  into 
an  abandonment  of  the  system,  and  has  accordingly  deemed  it  a  duty  to  sell, 


360  LIFE    OP    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

at  public  auction,  the  dredging-machines  and  snag-boats,  implements  and 
materials  on  hand,  for  whatever  they  would  bring.  Soon  the  country  was 
again  startled  by  the  frightful  accounts  of  wrecks  and  explosions,  fires  and 
snags  upon  the  rivers,  the  lakes,  and  the  sea-coast.  The  responsibility  of 
these  appalling  sacrifices  of  life  and  property  were  charged  upon  those  who 
defeated  the  appropriations  for  the  prosecution  of  the  works.  (Sympathy  was 
excited,  and  a  concerted  plan  of  agitation  and  organization  formed  by  the 
interested  sections  and  parties  to  bring  their  combined  influence  to  bear  upon 
Congress  in  favor  of  the  re-establishment  of  the  system  on  an  enlarged  scale, 
sufficiently  comprehensive  to  embrace  the  local  interests  and  influences  in  a 
majority  of  the  Congressional  districts  of  the  Union.  A  legislative  omnibus 
was  formed,  in  which  all  sorts  of  works  were  crowded  together,  good  and 
bad,  wise  and  foolish,  national  and  local,  all  crammed  into  one  bill,  and 
forced  through  Congress  by  the  power  of  an  organized  majority,  after  the 
fearful  and  exhausting  struggle  of  a  night  session.  The  bill  would  receive 
the  votes  of  a  majority  in  each  house,  not  because  any  one  senator  or  repre 
sentative  approved  all  the  items  contained  in  it,  but  for  the  reason  that  hu 
manity,  as  well  as  the  stern  demands  of  an  injured  and  suffering  constituen 
cy,  required  that  they  should  make  every  needful  sacrifice  of  money  to  dimin 
ish  the  terrible  loss  of  human  life  by  the  perils  of  navigation.  The  result 
was  a  simple  re-enactment  of  the  former  scenes.  Machinery,  implements, 
and  materials  purchased,  the  works  recommenced — the  money  exhausted — 
subsequent  appropriations  withheld — and  the  operations  suspended,  without 
completing  the  improvements,  or  contributing  materially  to  the  safety  of  nav 
igation.  Indeed,  it  may  well  be  questioned  whether,  as  a  general  rule,  the 
money  has  been  wisely  and  economically  applied,  and  in  many  cases  whether 
the  expenditure  has  been  productive  of  any  useful  results  beyond  the  mere 
distribution  of  so  much  money  among  contractors,  laborers,  and  superintend 
ents  in  the  favored  localities  ;  and  in  others,  whether  it  has  not  been  of  pos 
itive  detriment  to  the  navigating  interest. 

Far  be  it  from  my  purpose  to  call  in  question  the  integrity,  science,  or  skill 
of  those  whose  professional  duty  it  was  to  devise  the  plan  and  superintend 
the  construction  of  the  works.  But  I  do  insist  that  from  the  nature  of  their 
profession  and  their  habits  of  life  they  could  not  be  expected  to  possess  that 
local  knowledge — that  knowledge  of  currents  and  tides — the  effects  of  storms, 
floods,  and  ice,  always  different  and  ever  changing — in  each  locality  of  this 
widely-extended  country,  which  is  essential  in  determining  upon  the  proper 
site  and  plan  for  an  improvement  to  the  navigation.  Without  depreciating 
the  value  of  science  or  disregarding  its  precepts,  I  have  no  hesitation  in  say 
ing  that  the  opinion  of  an  intelligent  captain  or  pilot,  who  for  a  long  series 
of  years  had  sailed  out  of  and  into  a  given  port  in  fair  weather  and  foul,  and 
who  had  carefully  and  daily  watched  the  changes  produced  in  the  channel  by 
the  currents  and  storms,  wrecks  and  other  obstructions,  would  inspire  me 
with  more  confidence  than  that  of  the  most  eminent  professional  gentleman, 
whose  knowledge  and  science  in  the  line  of  his  profession  were  only  equaled 
by  his  profound  ignorance  of  all  those  local  and  practical  questions  which 
ought  to  determine  the  site  and  plan  of  the  proposed  improvement.  To  me, 
therefore,  it  is  no  longer  a  matter  of  surprise  that  errors  and  blundei's  occur 
in  the  mode  of  constructing  the  works,  and  that  follies  and  extravagance  ev 
ery  where  appear  in  the  expenditure  of  the  money.  These  evils  seem  to  be 
inherent  in  the  system ;  at  least,  they  have  thus  far  proven  unavoidable,  and 
have  become  so  palpable  and  notorious  that  it  is  worse  than  folly  to  close  our 
eyes  to  their  existence. 

*  In  addition  to  these  facts,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  a  large  and  in 
telligent  portion  of  the  American  people,  comprising,  perhaps,  a  majority  of 
the  Democratic  party,  are  in  the  habit  of  considering  these  works  as  consti- 


INTERNAL   IMPROVEMENTS.  361 

tuting  a  general  system  of  internal  improvements  by  the  federal  government, 
and  therefore  in  violation  of  the  creed  of  the  Democratic  party  and  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  These  two-fold  objections — the  one  de 
nying  the  constitutional  power,  and  the  other  the  expediency  of  appropria 
tions  from  the  national  treasury — seem  to  acquire  additional  strength  and 
force  in  proportion  as  the  importance  of  the  subject  is  enhanced,  and  the  ne 
cessity  for  more  numerous  and  extensive  improvements  is  created  by  the  ex 
tension  of  our  territory,  the  expansion  of  our  settlements,  and  the  develop 
ment  of  the  resources  of  the  country.  As  a  friend  to  the  navigating  interest, 
and  especially  identified  by  all  the  ties  of  affection,  gratitude,  and  interest 
with  that  section  of  the  republic  Avhich  is  the  most  deeply  interested  in  inter 
nal  navigation,  I  see  no  hope  for  any  more  favorable  results  from  national 
appropriations  than  we  have  heretofore  realized.  If,  then,  we  are  to  judge 
the  system  by  its  results,  taking  the  past  as  a  fair  indication  of  what  might 
reasonably  be  expected  in  the  future,  those  of  us  who  have  straggled  hardest 
to  render  it  efficient  and  useful  are  compelled  to  confess  that  it  has  proven  a 
miserable  failure.  It  is  even  worse  than  a  failure,  because,  while  it  has  fail 
ed  to  accomplish  the  desired  objects,  it  has  had  the  effect  to  prevent  local 
and  private  enterprise  from  making  the  improvements  under  state  authority, 
by  holding  out  the  expectation  that  the  federal  government  was  about  to 
make  them. 

By  way  of  illustration,  let  us  suppose  that  twenty-five  years  ago,  when  we 
first  began  to  talk  about  the  construction  of  railroads  in  this  country,  the  fed 
eral  government  had  assumed  to  itself  jurisdiction  of  all  works  of  that  de 
scription  to  the  exclusion  of  state  authority  and  individual  enterprise.  In 
that  event,  does  any  one  believe  we  would  now  have  in  the  United  States 
fourteen  thousand  miles  of  railroad  completed,  and  fifteen  thousand  miles  in 
addition  under  contract.  Is  it  to  be  presumed  that,  if  our  own  state  had 
prostrated  itself  in  humble  supplication  at  the  feet  of  the  federal  government, 
and  with  folded  arms  had  waited  for  appropriations  from  the  national  treas 
ury,  instead  of  exerting  state  authority,  and  stimulating  and  combining  indi 
vidual  enterprise,  we  should  now  have  in  Illinois  three  thousand  miles  of 
railroad  in  process  of  construction?  Let  the  history  of  internal  improve 
ments  by  the  federal  government  be  fairly  written,  and  it  will  furnish  con 
clusive  answers  to  these  interrogatories.  For  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  cen 
tury  the  energies  of  the  national  government,  together  with  all  the  spare 
funds  in  the  treasury,  were  directed  to  the  construction  of  a  Macadamized 
road  from  Cumberland,  in  the  State  of  Maryland,  to  Jefferson  City,  in  the 
State  of  Missouri,  without  being  able  to  complete  one  third  of  the  work.  If 
the  government  were  unable  to  make  three  hundred  miles  of  turnpike  road 
in  twenty-five  years,  how  long  would  it  take  to  construct  a  railroad  to  the 
Pacific  Ocean,  and  to  make  all  the  harbor  and  river  improvements  necessary 
to  protect  our  widely-extended  and  rapidly-increasing  commerce  on  a  sea- 
coast  so  extensive  that  in  forty  years  we  have  not  been  able  to  complete  even 
the  survey  of  one  half  of  it,  and  on  a  lake  and  river  navigation  more  than 
four  times  as  extensive  as  that  sea-coast  ?  These  questions  are  worthy  of 
the  serious  consideration  of  those  who  think  that  improvements  should  be 
made  for  the  benefit  of  the  present  generation  as  well  as  for  our  remote  pos 
terity  ;  for  I  am  not  aware  that  the  federal  government  ever  completed  any 
work  of  internal  improvement  commenced  under  its  auspices. 

The  operations  of  the  government  have  not  been  sufficiently  rapid  to  keep 
pace  with  the  spirit  of  the  age.  The  Cumberland  Road,  when  commenced, 
may  have  been  well  adapted  for  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  designed ;  but 
after  the  lapse  of  a  quarter  of  a  century,  and  before  any  considerable  portion 
of  it  could  be  finished,  the  whole  was  superseded  and  rendered  useless  by  the 
introduction  of  the  railroad  system.  One  reason,  and  perhaps  the  principal 

Q 


362  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.  DOUGLAS. 

cause,  of  the  slow  progress  of  all  government  improvements,  consists  in  the 
fact  that  the  appropriation  for  any  one  object  is  usually  too  small  to  be  of 
material  service.  It  may  be  sufficient  for  the  commencement  of  the  work, 
but  before  it  can  be  completed,  or  even  so  far  advanced  as  to  withstand  the 
effects  of  storms,  and  floods,  and  the  elements,  the  appropriation  is  exhausted, 
and  a  large  portion  of  the  work  swept  away  before  funds  can  be  obtained  for 
finishing  it,  or  even  protecting  that  which  has  been  done.  The  ruinous  con 
sequences  of  these  small  appropriations  are  well  understood  and  seriously 
deprecated,  but  they  arise  from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  and  constitute  some 
of  the  evils  inseparable  from  the  policy.  All  experience  proves  that  the 
numberless  items  of  a  river  and  harbor,  or  internal  improvement  bill,  can 
not  pass,  each  by  itself,  and  upon  its  own  merits,  and  that  the  friends  of 
particular  works  will  not  allow  appropriations  to  be  made  for  the  completion 
of  others  which  are  supposed  to  be  of  paramount  importance  unless  theirs  are 
embraced  in  the  same  bill.  Each  member  seems  to  think  the  work  in  his 
own  district  to  be  of  the  sternest  necessity  and  highest  importance,  and  hence 
feels  constrained  to  give  his  own  the  preference,  or  to  defeat  any  bill  which 
does  not  include  it.  The  result  is  a  legislative  omnibus,  in  which  all  manner 
of  objects  are  crowded  together  indiscriminately ;  and  as  there  never  is  and 
never  can  be  money  enough  in  the  treasury  to  make  adequate  appropriations 
for  the  whole,  and  as  the  bill  can  not  pass  unless  each  has  something,  of  course 
the  amount  for  each  item  must  be  reduced  so  low  as  to  make  it  of  little  or  no 
service,  and  thus  render  the  whole  bill  almost  a  total  loss.  In  this  manner  a 
large  portion  of  our  people  have  been  kept  in  a  state  of  suspense  and  anxiety 
for  more  than  half  a  century,  with  their  hopes  always  excited  and  their  ex 
pectations  never  realized. 

I  repeat  that  the  policy  heretofore  pursued  has  proved  worse  than  a  fail 
ure.  If  we  expect  to  provide  facilities  and  securities  for  our  navigating  in 
terests,  we  must  adopt  a  system  commensurate  with  our  wants — one  which 
will  be  just  and  equal  in  its  operations  upon  lake,  river,  and  ocean,  wherever 
the  water  is  navigable,  fresh  or  salt,  tide  or  no  tide — a  system  which  will  not 
depend  for  its  success  upon  the  dubious  and  fluctuating  issues  of  political 
campaigns  and  Congressional  combinations — one  which  will  be  certain,  uni 
form,  and  unvarying  in  its  results.  I  know  of  no  system  better  calculated 
to  accomplish  these  objects  than  that  which  commanded  the  approbation  of 
the  founders  of  the  republic,  was  successively  adopted  on  various  occasions 
since  that  period,  and  directly  referred  to  in  the  message  of  the  President. 
It  is  evidently  the  system  contemplated  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution 
when  they  incorporated  into  that  instrument  the  clause  in  relation  to  tonnage 
duties  by  the  states  with  the  assent  of  Congress.  The  debates  show  that  this 
provision  was  inserted  for  the  express  purpose  of  enabling  the  states  to  levy 
duties  of  tonnage  to  make  harbor  and  other  improvements  for  the  benefit  of 
navigation.  It  was  objected  that  the  power  to  regulate  commerce  having 
already  been  vested  exclusively  in  Congress,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  states  over 
harbor  and  river  improvements,  without  the  consent  or  supervision  of  the 
federal  government,  might  be  so  exercised  as  to  conflict  with  the  Congres 
sional  regulations  in  respect  to  commerce.  In  order  to  avoid  this  objection, 
and  at  the  same  time  reserve  to  the  states  the  power  of  making  the  necessary 
improvements,  consistent  with  such  rules  as  should  be  prescribed  by  Congress 
for  the  regulation  of  commerce,  the  provision  was  modified  and  adopted  in 
the  form  in  which  we  now  find  it  in  the  Constitution,  to  wit :  "no state  shall 
lay  duties  of  tonnage  except  by  the  consent  of  Congress."  It  is  evident  from  the 
debates  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  looked  to  tonnage  duties  as  the 
source  from  which  funds  were  to  be  derived  for  improvements  in  navigation. 
The  only  diversity  of  opinion  among  them  arose  upon  the  point  whether  those 
duties  should  be  levied  and  the  works  constructed  by  the  federal  government 


INTERNAL   IMPROVEMENTS.  363 

or  under  state  authority.  These  doubts  were  solved  by  the  clause  quoted, 
providing,  in  effect,  that  while  the  power  was  reserved  to  the  states,  it  should 
not  be  exercised  except  by  the  consent  of  Congress,  in  order  that  the  local 
legislation  for  the  improvement  of  navigation  might  not  conflict  with  the  gen 
eral  enactments  for  the  regulation  of  commerce.  Yet  the  first  Congress 
which  assembled  under  the  Constitution  commenced  that  scries  of  contra 
dictory  and  partial  enactments  which  has  continued  to  the  present  time,  and 
proven  the  fruitful  source  of  conflict  and  dissension. 

The  first  of  these  acts  provided  that  all  expenses  for  the  support  of  light 
houses,  beacons,  buoys,  and  public  piers,  should  be  paid  out  of  the  national 
treasury,  on  the  condition  that  the  states  in  which  the  same  should  be  situ 
ated  respectively  should  cede  to  the  United  States  the  said  works,  "  together 
with  the  lands  and  tenements  thereunto  belonging,  and  together  with  the  ju 
risdiction  of  the  same."  A  few  months  afterward  the  same  Congress  passed 
an  act  consenting  that  the  States  of  Rhode  Island,  Maryland,  and  Georgia 
might  levy  tonnage  duties  for  the  purpose  of  improving  certain  harbors  and 
rivers  within  their  respective  limits.  This  contradictory  legislation  upon  a 
subject  of  great  national  importance,  although  commenced  by  the  first  Con 
gress,  and  frequently  suspended  and  renewed  at  uncertain  and  irregular  pe 
riods,  seems  never  to  have  been  entirely  abandoned.  While  appropriations 
from  the  national  treasury  have  been  partial  and  irregular — sometimes  grant 
ed  and  at  others  withheld — stimulating  hopes  only  to  be  succeeded  by  disap 
pointments,  tonnage  duties  have  also  been  collected  by  the  consent  of  Con 
gress,  at  various  times  and  for  limited  periods,  in  Pennsylvania,  Maryland, 
Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  Massachu 
setts,  Rhode  Island,  and  perhaps  other  states.  Indeed,  there  has  never  been 
a  time,  since  the  declaration  of  Independence,  when  tonnage  duties  have 
not  been  collected  under  state  authority  for  the  improvement  of  rivers  or  har 
bors,  or  both.  The  last  act  giving  the  consent  of  Congress  to  the  collection 
of  these  duties  was  passed  for  the  benefit  of  the  port  of  Baltimore  in  1850, 
and  will  not  expire  until  1861. 

Thus  it  will  bs  seen  that  the  proposition  to  pass  a  general  law  giving  the 
consent  of  Congress  to  the  imposition  of  tonnage  duties  according  to  a  uni 
form  rule,  and  upon  equal  terms  in  all  the  states  and  Territories  of  the  Union, 
does  not  contemplate  the  introduction  of  a  new  principle  into  our  legislation 
upon  this  subject.  It  only  proposes  to  convert  a  partial  and  fluctuating  pol 
icy  into  a  permanent  and  efficient  system. 

If  this  proposition  should  receive  the  sanction  of  Congress,  and  be  carried 
into  successful  operation  by  the  states,  it  would  withdraw  river  and  harbor 
improvements  from  the  perils  of  the  political  arena,  and  commit  them  to  the 
fostering  care  of  the  local  authorities,  with  a  steady  and  unceasing  source  of 
revenue  for  their  prosecution.  The  system  would  be  plain,  direct,  and  sim 
ple  in  respect  to  harbor  improvements.  Each  town  and  city  would  have 
charge  of  the  improvement  of  its  own  harbor,  and  would  be  authorized  to 
tax  its  own  commerce  to  the  extent  necessary  for  its  construction.  The 
money  could  be  applied  to  no  other  object  than  the  improvement  of  the  har 
bor,  and  no  higher  duties  could  be  levied  than  were  necessary  for  that  pur 
pose.  There  would  seem  to  be  no  danger  of  the  power  being  abused ;  for, 
in  addition  to  the  restrictions,  limitations,  and  conditions  Avhich  should  be 
embraced  in  the  laws  conferring  the  consent  of  Congress,  self-interest  will 
furnish  adequate  and  ample  assurances  and  motives  for  the  faithful  execution 
of  the  trusts.  If  any  town  whose  harbor  needs  improvement  should  fail  to 
impose  the  duties  and  make  the  necessary  works,  such  neglect  would  inevita 
bly  tend  to  drive  the  commerce  to  some  rival  port,  which  would  use  all  the 
means  in  its  power  to  render  its  harbor  safe  and  commodious,  and  afford  all 
necessary  protection  and  facilities  to  navigation  and  trade.  If,  on  the  other 


364  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

hand,  any  place  should  attempt  to  impose  higher  duties  than  will  be  abso 
lutely  necessary  for  the  construction  of  the  requisite  improvements,  this  line 
of  policy,  to  the  extent  of  the  excess,  would  have  the  same  deleterious  effects 
upon  its  prosperity.  The  same  injurious  influences  would  result  from  errors 
and  blunders  in  the  plan  of  the  work,  or  from  extravagance  and  corruption 
in  the  expenditure  of  the  money.  Hence  each  locality,  and  every  citizen  and 
person  interested  therein,  would  have  a  direct  and  personal  interest  in  the 
adoption  of  a  wise  plan,  and  in  securing  strict  economy  and  entire  fidelity  in 
the  expenditure  of  the  money.  While  upon  the  rivers  the  plan  of  operations 
would  not  be  so  direct  and  simple  as  in  the  improvement  of  harbors,  yet  even 
there  it  is  not  perceived  that  any  serious  inconvenience  or  obstacle  would 
arise  to  the  success  of  the  system.  It  would  be  necessary  that  the  law,  which 
shall  grant  the  consent  of  Congress  to  the  imposition  of  the  duties,  shall  also 
give  a  like  consent  in  conformity  with  the  same  provision  of  the  Constitution, 
that  where  the  river  to  be  improved  shall  form  the  boundary  of,  or  be  situ 
ated  in  two  or  more  states,  such  states  may  enter  into  compacts  with  each 
other,  by  which  they  may,  under  their  joint  authority,  levy  the  duties  and 
improve  the  navigation. 

In  this  manner  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  and  New  Jersey  could  enter  into 
a  compact  for  the  improvement  of  the  Delaware  River,  by  which  each  would 
appoint  one  commissioner,  and  the  three  commissioners  constitute  a  board, 
which  would  levy  the  duties,  prescribe  the  mode  of  their  collection,  devise 
the  plan  of  the  improvement,  and  superintend  the  expenditure  of  the  money. 
The  six  states  bordering  on  the  Ohio  River,  in  like  manner,  could  each  ap 
point  a  commissioner,  and  the  six  constitute  a  board  for  the  improvement 
of  the  navigation  of  tlaat  river  from  Pittsburg  to  the  Mississippi.  The  same 
plan  could  be  applied  to  the  Mississippi,  by  which  the  nine  states  bordering 
upon  that  stream  could  each  appoint  one  commissioner,  and  the  nine  form  a 
board  for  the  removal  of  snags  and  other  obstructions  in  the  channel  from 
the  Falls  of  St.  Anthony  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  There  seems  to  be  no  diffi 
culty,  therefore,  in  the  execution  of  the  plan  where  the  water-course  lies  in 
two  or  more  states,  or  forms  the  boundaiy  thereof  in  whole  or  in  part ;  and 
where  the  river  is  entirely  within  the  limits  of  any  one  state,  like  the  Illinois 
or  Alabama,  it  may  be  improved  in  such  manner  as  the  Legislature  may  pre 
scribe,  subject  only  to  such  conditions  and  limitations  as  may  be  contained 
in  the  act  of  Congress  giving  its  consent.  All  the  necessities  and  difficulties 
upon  this  subject  seem  to  have  been  foreseen  and  provided  for  in  the  same 
clause  of  the  Constitution,  wherein  it  is  declared,  in  effect,  that,  with  the  con 
sent  of  Congress,  tonnage  duties  may  be  levied  for  the  improvement  of  rivers 
and  harbors,  and  that  the  several  states  may  enter  into  compacts  with  each 
other  for  that  purpose  whenever  it  shall  become  necessary,  subject  only  to 
such  rules  as  Congress  shall  prescribe  for  the  regulation  of  commerce. 

It  only  remains  for  me  to  notice  some  of  the  objections  which  have  been 
urged  to*  this  system.  It  has  been  said  that  tonnage  duties  are  taxes  upon 
the  commerce  of  the  country,  which  must  be  paid  in  the  end  by  the  consum 
ers  of  the  articles  bearing  the  burden.  I  do  not  feel  disposed  to  question  the 
soundness  of  this  proposition.  I  presume  the  same  is  true  of  all  the  duties, 
tolls,  and  charges  npon  all  public  works,  whether  constructed  by  government 
or  individuals.  The  State  of  New  York  derives  a  revenue  of  more  than  two 
millions  of  dollars  a  year  from  her  canals.  Of  course  this  is  a  tax  upon  the 
commerce  of  the  country,  and  is  borne  by  those  who  are  interested  in  and 
benefited  by  it.  This  tax  is  a  blessing  or  a  burden,  dependent  upon  the  fact 
whether  it  has  the  effect  to  diminish  or  increase  the  cost  of  transportation. 
If  we  could  not  have  enjoyed  the  benefit  of  the  canal  without  the  payment 
of  the  tolls,  and  if,  by  its  construction  and  the  payment,  the  cost  of  trans 
portation  has  been  reduced  to  one  tenth  the  sum  which  we  would  have  been 


INTERNAL   IMPROVEMENTS.  365 

compelled  to  have  paid  without  it,  who  would  not  be  willing  to  make  a  still 
further  contribution  to  the  security  and  facilities  of  navigation,  if  thereby  the 
price  of  freights  are  to  be  reduced  in  a  still  greater  ratio  ?  The  tolls  upon 
our  own  canal  are  a  tax  upon  commerce,  yet  we  cheerfully  submit  to  the  pay 
ment  for  the  reason  that  they  were  indispensable  to  the  construction  of  a  great 
work,  which  has  had  the  effect  to  reduce  the  cost  of  transportation  between 
the  Lakes  and  the  Mississippi  far  below  what  it  would  have  been  if  the  canal 
had  not  been  made.  All  the  charges  on  the  fourteen  thousand  miles  of  rail 
road  now  in  operation  in  the  different  states  of  this  Union  are  just  so  many 
taxes  upon  commerce  and  travel,  yet  we  do  not  repudiate  the  whole  railroad 
system  on  that  account,  nor  object  to  the  payment  of  such  reasonable  charges 
as  are  necessary  to  defray  the  expenses  of  constructing  and  operating  them. 
But  it  may  be  said  that  if  all  the  railroads  and  canals  were  built  with  funds 
from  the  national  treasury,  and  were  then  thrown  open  to  the  uses  of  com 
merce  and  travel  free  of  charge,  the  rates  of  transportation  would  be  less  than 
they  now  are.  It  may  be  that  the  rates  of  transportation  would  be  less,  but 
would  our  taxes  be  reduced  thereby  ?  No  matter  who  is  intrusted  with  the 
construction  of  the  works,  somebody  must  foot  the  bill.  If  the  federal  gov 
ernment  undertake  to  make  railroads  and  canals,  and  river  and  harbor  im 
provements,  somebody  must  pay  the  expenses.  In  order  to  meet  this  enlarged 
expenditure,  it  would  be  necessary  to  augment  the  revenue  by  increased  taxes 
upon  the  commerce  of  the  country.  The  whole  volume  of  revenue  which 
now  fills  and  overflows  the  national  treasury,  with  the  exception  of  the  small 
item  resulting  from  the  sales  of  public  lands,  is  derived  from  a  system  of  taxes 
imposed  upon  commerce  and  collected  through  the  machinery  of  the  custom 
houses.  No  matter,  therefore,  whether  these  works  are  made  by  the  federal 
government,  or  by  stimulating  and  combining  local  and  individual  enterprise 
under  state  authority ;  in  any  event,  they  remain  a  tax  upon  commerce  to 
the  extent  of  the  expenditure. 

That  system  which  will  insure  the  construction  of  the  improvements  upon 
the  best  plan  and  at  the  smallest  cost  will  prove  the  least  oppressive  to  the 
tax-payer  and  the  most  useful  to  commerce.  It  requires  no  argument  to 
prove — for  every  day's  experience  teaches  us — that  public  works  of  every  de 
scription  can  be  made  at  a  much  smaller  cost  by  private  enterprise,  or  by  the 
local  authorities  directly  interested  in  the  improvement,  than  when  construct 
ed  by  the  federal  government.  Hence,  inasmuch  as  the  expenses  of  con 
structing  river  and  harbor  improvements  must,  under  either  plan,  be  defray 
ed  by  a  tax  upon  commerce  in  the  first  instance,  and  finally  upon  the  whole 
people  interested  in  that  commerce,  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  burdens 
would  be  less  under  this  system  referred  to  in  the  message  than  by  appropri 
ations  from  the  federal  treasury.  Those  who  seem  not  to  have  understood 
the  difference  have  attempted  to  excite  prejudice  against  this  plan  for  the  im 
provement  of  navigations  by  comparing  it  to  the  burdens  imposed  upon  the 
navigation  of  the  Rhine,  the  Elbe,  the  Oder,  and  other  rivers  running  through 
the  German  states.  The  people  residing  upon  these  rivers  did  not  complain 
that  they  were  required  to  pay  duties  for  the  improvement  of  their  naviga 
tion.  Such  was  not  the  fact.  No  duties  were  imposed  for  any  such  pur 
pose.  No  improvements  in  the  navigation  were  ever  made  or  contemplated 
by  those  who  exacted  the  tolls.  Taxes  were  extorted  from  the  navigating 
interest  by  the  petty  sovereigns  through  whose  dominions  the  rivers  run,  for 
the  purpose  of  defraying  the  expenses  of  the  pomp,  and  ceremonies,  and  fol 
lies  of  vicious  and  corrupt  courts.  The  complaint  was,  that  grievous  and  un 
necessary  burdens  were  imposed  on  navigation  without  expending  any  por 
tion  of  the  money  for  its  protection  and  improvement.  Their  complaints 
were  just.  They  should  have  protested,  if  they  had  lived  under  a  govern 
ment  where  the  voice  of  the  people  could  be  heard,  against  the  payment  of 


366  LIFE   OF  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

any  more  or  higher  tolls  than  were  necessary  for  the  improvement  of  the 
navigation,  and  have  insisted  that  the  funds  collected  should  be  applied  to 
that  purpose  and  none  other.  In  short,  a  plan  similar  to  the  one  now  pro 
posed  would  have  been  a  full  and  complete  redress  of  all  their  grievances 
upon  this  subject. 

In  conclusion,  I  will  state  that  my  object  in  addressing  you  this  communi 
cation  is  to  invite  your  special  attention  to  so  much  of  the  President's  Mes 
sage  as  relates  to  river  and  harbor  improvements,  with  the  view  that  when 
the  Legislature  shall  assemble,  either  in  special  or  general  session,  the  sub 
ject  may  be  distinctly  submitted  to  their  consideration  for  such  action  as  the 
great  interests  of  commerce  may  demand. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  your  friend  and  fellow-citizen, 

S.  A.  DOUGLAS. 
JOEL  A.  MATTESON,  Governor  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

THE   ILLINOIS    CENTRAL   EAILKOAD   GRANT. 

In  1843  Mr.  Douglas  entered  Congress,  and  for  over  seven 
years  he  supported  and  struggled  to  obtain  that  magnificent 
grant  of  land  which  led  to  the  construction  of  the  Illinois  Cen 
tral  Railroad,  and  eventually  to  the  establishment  of  the  grand 
web  of  railroads  which  is  now  spread  out  all  over  the  North 
western  States.  The  construction  of  a  great  railroad  from  the 
junction  of  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  Rivers  through  the  state 
to  a  point  on  the  Illinois  River,  and  thence  north  to  Galena, 
had  for  many  years  been  one  of  the  leading  topics  in  Illinois. 
It  was  regarded  then  and  very  justly  as  the  one  great  thing 
needed  to  develop  the  resources  of  the  state,  and  attract  to  its 
fruitful  soil  the  tide  of  emigration.  When  the  Internal  Im 
provement  System  broke  down  so  irretrievably  in  the  state, 
the  attention  of  the  people  was  directed  to  Congress  and  to 
the  public  lands  as  the  only  reliable  resources  from  whence  the 
necessary  aid  to  construct  the  desired  work  could  be  expected. 

When  Mr.  Douglas  entered  Congress  there  was  in  existence 
in  Illinois  a  company  possessing  certain  rights  to  construct  a 
railroad  from  Cairo  to  the  north.  This  company  was  gener 
ally  known  as  the  "  Cairo  Company ;"  it  had  petitioned  Con 
gress  for  permission  to  enter  as  pre-emptions  a  certain  quan 
tity  of  land  along  the  line  of  the  proposed  road.  The  title  of 
the  company  was  the  "  Great  Western  Railway  Company." 
A  Mr.  Holbrook  was  the  active  operator  in  its  affairs. 

In  the  Senate,  at  the  session  of  '43,-'4,  a  bill  was  introduced 
and  reported  upon  favorably,  granting  to  Holbrook's  com 
pany  the  right  of  way  through  the  public  lands  for  a  railway, 
and  entitling  them  to  enter  as  pre-emptors  the  public  lands 
along  the  route,  they  to  pay  the  government  eventually  one 


INTEENAI,    IMPKOVEMENTS.  367 

dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  per  acre.  Mr.  Douglas,  who  was, 
as  we  have  stated,  a  member  of  the  House,  was  strongly  op 
posed  to  this  measure.  He  insisted  that,  if  any  grant  was 
made,  it  should  be  made  to  the  state  of  Illinois,  and  not  to  any 
private  corporation.  He  had  no  faith  in  Holbrook  or  his  asso 
ciates,  and  had  no  idea  that  they  would  ever  construct  the 
road.  He  believed  that  the  object  of  the  operators  was  to  ob 
tain  the  pre-emption  privilege,  and  then  sell  their  charter  with 
it  in  Europe,  and  thus  get  out  of  the  matter.  He  urged  that 
a  failure  to  carry  out  in  good  faith  the  object  in  considera 
tion  of  which  the  grant  was  made  would  have  the  effect  to  pre 
vent  a  like  application  thereafter,  would  suspend  the  land  sales 
for  several  years,  would  retard  the  settlement  of  the  state,  and 
give  a  very  unjust  impression  abroad  as  to  the  prospects  of 
Illinois  as  an  improving  and  flourishing  community.  He  urged 
that  the  scheme  proposed  should  be  abandoned,  and  that  Con 
gress  should  be  asked  for  a  direct  grant  of  land  to  the  state 
to  aid  it  in  constructing  the  proposed  railroad.  In  these  ob 
jections  he  was  sustained  generally  by  his  colleagues  in  the 
House.  The  bill  as  introduced  was  persisted  in,  and  passed 
the  Senate,  and  no  action  was  had  upon  it  in  the  House.  At 
the  next  session  a  bill  was  introduced  into  the  Senate  the  same 
as  that  of  last  session,  with  the  exception  that  the  "  State  of 
Illinois"  was  named  as  the  grantee  of  the  right  of  pre-emption 
instead  of  the  "Great  Western  Railway  Company."  That 
bill  was  never  taken  up.  At  the  session  of  '45-'6  a  bill  was 
introduced  into  the  Senate,  granting  "to  the  State  of  Illinois 
alternate  sections  of  the  public  land  to  aid  in  the  construction 
of  the  Northern  Cross  and  Central  Railroads  in  said  state." 
This  bill  was  never  taken  up  during  that  session.  At  the  ses 
sion  of  1846-' 7  a  bill  was  introduced  into  the  Senate  granting 
the  right  of  way  and  a  pre-emption  privilege,  but  containing 
no  grant  of  land.  This  bill  also  was  suffered  to  sleep,  and  no 
action  was  had  upon  it. 

In  the  winter  of  1846-' 7  Mr.  Douglas  was  elected  to  the 
Senate.  During  the  summer  of  1847  he  traveled  over  a  large 
portion  of  the  state,  and,  wherever  he  made  speeches,  he  dis 
cussed  the  question  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad.  He  took 
the  position  that  whatever  grant  was  obtained  should  be  ob 
tained  for  the  state,  and  not  for  private  individuals ;  that  the 
state  ought  not  to  take  a  mere  grant  of  pre-emption  privilege 


368  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN    A.  DOUGLAS. 

— a  privilege  of  buying  the  government  land  for  one  dollar 
and  a  quarter  per  acre  upon  the  condition  of  constructing  a 
railroad  through  them ;  and  told  the  people  he  would  apply 
for  a  grant  of  alternate  sections  of  land  to  be  given  to  the 
state  gratuitously  on  condition  that  the  road  was  constructed. 
He  expressed  a  confident  hope  that  that  measure  would  re 
ceive  an  undivided  support  in  Illinois,  in  which  case  he  had  no 
doubt  as  to  its  ultimate  success.  He  urged  the  propriety  of 
holding  public  meetings  and  the  signing  of  memorials  having 
the  obtaining  of  such  a  grant  in  view. 

The  old  bills  contemplated  but  one  road — that  upon  the  line 
of  the  one  projected  by  the  state  in  '36,  having  its  northern 
terminus  at  Galena,  and  carefully  avoiding  Chicago  and  the 
country  lying  between  that  city  and  the  Illinois  River.  He 
stated  his  determination  to  include  in  the  measure  a  road  con 
necting  with  the  lakes,  thus  securing  for  it  friends  in  the 
Northeastern  and  Middle  States,  who  did  not  like  a  proposi 
tion  having  for  its  natural  tendency  the  diversion  of  all  trade 
and  traffic  from  the  upper  Mississippi  toward  New  Orleans 
instead  of  toward  the  Atlantic  sea-board.  By  making  an  ad 
ditional  road  to  the  lakes  at  Chicago,  a  direct  route  would  be 
made  from  the  Southwest  through  to  Philadelphia,  Baltimore, 
and  New  York ;  would  connect  the  lower  Mississippi  with  the 
lakes,  the  lakes  and  the  Eastern  States  with  the  Southwest, 
and  give  to  the  vast  region  north  and  west  of  Illinois  a  com 
munication  both  east  and  south. 

When  Congress  met  in  December,  1847,  Mr.  Douglas  took 
his  seat  in  the  Senate.  In  a  few  weeks  the  old  and  familiar 
"  Pre-emption"  Bill  was  introduced  and  referred.  In  January 
Mr.  Douglas  introduced  his  bill  granting  alternate  sections  of 
the  public  land  to  the  State  of  Illinois  to  aid  in  the  construc 
tion  of  a  railroad  from  Cairo  to  Galena,  with  a  branch  from 
some  appropriate  point  on  the  road  to  Chicago.  It  also  em 
braced  a  proposition  for  a  road  crossing  the  state  from  Indiana 
to  the  Mississippi  River.  Both  bills  were  reported  from  the 
Senate  Committee  on  public  lands,  of  which  the  Hon.  Sidney 
Breese  of  Illinois  was  chairman.  The  latter  bill — the  one  pro 
posed  by  Mr.  Douglas — was  subsequently  taken  up,  and  early 
in  May  was  passed  by  the  Senate.  The  other  bill  was  not 
acted  upon. 

The  representatives  in  the  House  from  Illinois  all  gave  to 


INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS.  369 

the  measure  their  cordial  support.  Toward  the  close  of  the 
session,  however,  it  was  laid  on  the  table  by  a  small  majority. 
At  the  next  session,  '48-9,  Mr.  Douglas  introduced  his  bill  in 
the  Senate  again ;  but,  before  any  action  was  had  in  that  body, 
the  Illinois  representatives  in  the  House  had  succeeded  in  hav 
ing  the  bill  of  the  last  session  restored  to  its  place  on  the  cal 
endar,  but  Congress  adjourned  without  any  farther  action  on 
the  bill  by  the  House. 

In  December,  1849,  Mr.  Douglas,  with  his  colleague,  General 
Shields,  who  had  succeeded  Mr.  Breese,  and  the  Illinois  dele 
gation  in  the  House,  matured  a  bill  having  but  one  road  in 
contemplation,  and  that  the  Illinois  Central  and  its  Chicago 
branch.  That  bill,  in  which  all  the  Illinois  members  had  a 
part  in  framing,  was  introduced  into  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Doug 
las  in  January,  1850.  The  Compromise  Measures  of  that  year, 
and  the  question  of  Slavery  generally,  engrossed  nearly  all  the 
time  and  discussions  of  the  Senate.  That  subject  came  up  al 
most  every  morning,  and  frequently  was  considered  several 
days  in  succession,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other  business.  There 
was,  however,  another  reason  for  delay.  When  it  had  become 
certain  that  the  only  act  that  would  be  seriously  pressed  by 
the  Illinois  representatives  would  be  one  making  a  grant  of 
land  to  the  State  of  Illinois,  the  parties  interested  in  the 
Cairo  Company  saw  at  once  an  end  to  their  schemes  unless 
they  could  in  some  manner  circumvent  that  policy.  They 
therefore  proceeded  to  the  Legislature  of  Illinois,  and  after  a 
siege,  and  by  the  most  dexterous  management,  the  Legislature 
was  induced  to  pass  a  measure  ceding  to  Holbrook  and  his 
associates  all  lands  that  might  at  any  time  be  granted  by  Con 
gress  to  the  state  for  the  purpose,  or  in  aid  of  the  construction 
of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad.  Here,  then,  was  a  new  and 
dangerous  pitfall  prepared  for  the  great  measure.  If  Congress 
should  grant  land  to  the  company,  the  state  would  be  at  the 
mercy  of  an  irresponsible  band  of  speculators  ;  to  prevent  this 
the  policy  had  been  changed,  so  as  to  secure  the  grant  direct 
ly  to  the  state,  leaving  the  latter  full  power  and  control  over 
the  entire  matter,  and  free  to  act  with  whoever  would  offer 
the  best  terms.  But  Holbrook  had  effectually  headed  off  this 
policy  by  the  amendment  which  he  had  obtained  to  his  charter. 
He  came  to  Washington  and  importuned  for  the  passage  of 
the  bill  in  the  shape  in  which  it  had  been  introduced  some 

Q2 


370  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

years  before,  or  he  would  take  the  bill  then  pending.  He  pro 
posed  to  be  on  intimate  terms  with  Mr.  Douglas,  but  the  lat 
ter  declined  the  association. 

At  length,  when  fully  informed  of  all  the  facts,  Mr.  Douglas 
sent  for  Holbrook,  and  told  him  that  no  bill  of  any  kind  would 
be  suffered  to  pass  unless  the  grant  was  made  directly  to  the 
state,  and  to  be  held  and  disposed  of  by  the  state  freely,  and 
unlimited  by  any  previous  charter  either  to  Holbrook  or  any 
one  else.  If  Holbrook  persisted  in  the  right  obtained  under 
his  charter  and  the  subsequent  legislation  of  Illinois,  he,  Mr. 
Douglas,  would  expose  and  denounce  the  whole  scheme  as  one 
intended  to  use  the  name  of  the  state  to  obtain  an  immense 
property  for  irresponsible  and  dishonest  men  to  speculate  and 
grow  rich  upon.  He  refused  to  move  in  the  matter  in  Con 
gress  unless  Holbrook  would  first  sign  and  execute  a  good  and 
valid  release  of  every  right,  claim,  and  demand  to  any  lands 
that  might  be  granted  by  Congress  to  the  state  for  railroad  or 
other  purposes.  If  Holbrook  would  not  sign  such  a  release, 
and  attempted  to  have  any  bill  passed,  Mr.  Douglas  notified 
him  that  he  would  denounce  and  expose  the  whole  game.  It 
was  a  serious  matter  to  the  state,  and  equally  so  to  Holbrook. 
It  was  total  loss  to  one  or  the  other.  If  the  law  passed  as 
matters  then  stood,  Holbrook's  company  got  all,  the  state 
nothing.  If  Holbrook's  company  surrendered,  as  demanded 
by  Mr.  Douglas,  then  the  state  got  all,  and  the  company  noth 
ing.  If  Holbrook  refused  to  surrender,  Douglas  stood  in  his 
way  of  obtaining  any  grant  of  any  kind.  The  alternatives 
were  not  inviting  to  Mr.  Holbrook ;  but  at  length  he  yielded ; 
he  signed  and  delivered  the  demanded  release  to  the  state, 
which  release  was  forwarded  to  Springfield,  and  filed  in  the 
archives  of  the  State  of  Illinois.  Thus  was  it  that  the  grant 
was  received  by  the  state  unfettered  and  unimpaired  by  any  of 
the  adroit  schemes  of  the  wily  speculators  upon  the  public  wel 
fare.  Having  relieved  the  state  of  the  Holbrook  Company's 
claim,  Mr.  Douglas  at  once  undertook  to  get  the  bill  considered. 

It  was  not  until  April  29  that  he  could  induce  the  Senate  to 
consider  the  bill,  and  then  only  after  a  most  spirited  and  fer 
vent  appeal.  Having  once  got  the  bill  before  the  Senate,  he 
pressed  it  day  after  day  until  the  2d  of  May,  when,  notwith 
standing  the  covert  hostility  of  some  Western  senators,  the  bill 
passed — yeas  26,  nays  14. 


INTERNAL   IMPROVEMENTS.  371 

The  bill  was  taken  to  the  House,  and  there,  by  the  skill,  good 
management,  and  unity  of  action  of  the  representatives  of  the 
state,  the  House  was  eventually  brought  to  a  vote,  and  the  act 
making  the  donation  of  public  land  to  the  State  of  Illinois,  to 
aid  in  the  construction  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  and  its 
branch  to  Chicago,  became  a  law. 

On  his  return  to  Illinois  at  the  close  of  the  session,  Mr. 
Douglas  and  General  Shields  Avere  tendered  a  public  dinner 
by  the  citizens  of  Chicago,  in  consideration  of  their  services  in 
obtaining  the  passage  of  this  act.  The  two  senators,  in  de 
clining  the  honor,  took  the  occasion  to  award  to  their  col 
leagues  in  the  House  the  full  measure  of  credit  for  the  suc 
cessful  carrying  of  the  bill  through  the  intricate  parliamentary 
mazes  that  surrounded  its  pathway  to  completion. 

The  great  Central  Railroad  of  Illinois,  the  beginning  of  a 
system  of  great  works,  is  now  completed.  The  benefits  it  has 
produced  to  the  state  can  not  be  calculated.  During  the  five 
years  immediately  following  the  passage  of  the  bill  the  popu 
lation  of  Illinois  increased  from  850,000  to  over  1,300,000. 
Other  railroads  have  been  constructed,  and  to  day  the  Illinois 
Central  Railroad  is  but  a  trunk  to  which  and  from  which  the 
travel  and  transportation  of  the  Valley  of  the  Mississippi  bend 
their  way  by  roads  from  every  quarter  of  the  country.  The  peo 
ple  of  Illinois  and  of  the  Northwest  will  never  be  indifferent 
to  the  great  benefits  resulting  from  the  passage  of  the  Illinois 
Central  Railroad  land  grant,  nor  will  the  men  who  were  in 
strumental  in  achieving  the  great  work  be  forgotten  by  a 
grateful  people. 

Mr.  Douglas  has  always  supported  and  voted  for  the  bills 
making  grants  for  similar  purposes  to  the  states  of  Alabama, 
Mississippi,  Louisiana,  Arkansas,  Missouri,  Iowa,  Michigan, 
Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  aud  perhaps  other  states. 

THE    PACIFIC    RAILROAD. 

Mr.  Douglas  has  been  a  friend  and  supporter  of  what  he  has 
himself  styled  "  the  great  measure  of  the  age" — the  construc 
tion  of  a  railroad  to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  He  has  repeatedly  in 
troduced  bills  for  that  end,  and  has  as  repeatedly  been  chosen 
on  select  committees  having  that  subject  in  charge.  By  vote 
and  by  speech  he  has  exhibited  the  sincerity  of  his  interest  in 
this  great  national  work,  and  has  suffered  no  occasion  to  pass 


372  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

without  appealing  to  the  friends  of  the  road  to  drop  all  con 
troversy  as  to  the  details,  and  secure  the  substance,  the  main 
thing,  the  road  itself.  He  was  originally  in  favor  of  authoriz 
ing  the  construction  of  three  roads — one  at  the  north,  one  at 
the  centre,  and  the  other  at  the  south,  leaving  to  the  con 
tractors  the  choice  of  such  route  as  private  interest  and  enter 
prise  would  select  as  the  most  promising  of  success.  He  has 
always  opposed  an  arbitrary  declaration  by  Congress  of  the 
route  to  be  taken,  preferring  to  fix  only  the  termini,  and  leave 
to  those  interested  in  the  construction  of  the  road  to  determine 
the  route  between  the  given  points,  by  such  considerations  as 
time  and  experience  might  suggest. 

Bills  for  the  construction  of  the  Pacific  railroad  have  been 
before  Congress  for  several  years,  and  they  have  always  re 
ceived  the  support  of  Mr.  Douglas.  If  no  act  has  passed  for 
that  work,  no  part  of  the  serious  responsibility  for  the  omis 
sion  of  duty  can  rest  upon  him.  He  has  never  failed  in  his 
duty  toward  this  important  national  work. 

When  the  bill  was  under  consideration  in  the  Senate  in 
1858,  Mr.  Douglas,  on  the  17th  of  April,  thus  stated  his  views : 

Mr.  President, — I  have  witnessed  with  deep  regret  the  indications  that  this 
measure  is  to  be  defeated  at  the  present  session  of  Congress.  I  had  hoped 
that  this  Congress  would  signalize  itself  by  inaugurating  the  great  measure 
of  connecting  the  Mississippi  Valley  with  the  Pacific  Ocean  by  a  railroad.  I 
had  supposed  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  had  decided  the  question 
at  the  last  presidential  election  in  a  manner  so  emphatic  as  to  leave  no  doubt 
that  their  will  was  to  be  carried  into  effect.  I  believe  that  all  the  presiden 
tial  candidates  at  the  last  election  were  committed  to  the  measure.  All  the 
presidential  platforms  sanctioned  it  as  a  part  of  their  creed.  I  believe  it  is 
about  the  only  measure  on  which  there  was  entire  unanimity ;  and  it  is  a  very 
curious  fact  that  the  measure  which  commanded  universal  approbation — the 
measure  upon  which  all  parties  united — a  measure  against  which  no  man 
could  be  found,  previous  to  the  election,  to  raise  his  voice — should  be  the  one 
that  can  receive  no  support,  nor  the  co-operation  of  any  one  party,  while  dis 
puted  measures  can  occupy  the  whole  time  of  Congress,  and  can  be  carried 
through  successfully.  I  make  no  complaint  of  any  political  party,  nor  of  any 
gentleman  who  opposes  this  bill ;  but  it  did  strike  me  that  it  was  a  fact  to  be 
noticed,  that  a  measure  of  this  description,  so  long  before  the  country,  so  well 
understood  by  the  people,  and  receiving  such  universal  sanction  from  them, 
should  not  be  carried  into  effect.  If  the  bill  which  has  been  devised  by  the 
committee  is  not  the  best  that  can  be  framed,  let  it  be  amended  and  modified 
until  its  objectionable  features  shall  be  removed.  Let  us  not  make  a  test 
question  of  this  particular  form  of  bill  or  that  particular  form;  of  this  partic 
ular  route  or  that  particular  route  ;  of  the  benefits  to  this  section  or  that  sec 
tion.  If  there  is  any  thing  wrong  in  the  details,  in  the  form,  in  the  construc 
tion  of  the  bill,  let  the  objectionable  features  be  removed,  and  carry  out  the 
great  object  of  a  railroad  communication  between  the  Mississippi  Valley  and 
the  Pacific  Ocean. 


INTERNAL   IMPROVEMENTS .  3*73 

Various  objections  have  been  raised  to  this  bill,  some  referring  to  the  route, 
involving  sectional  consideration ;  others  to  the  form  of  the  bill ;  others  to  the 
present  time  as  inauspicious  for  the  construction  of  such  a  railroad  under  any 
circumstances.  Sir,  I  have  examined  this  bill  very  carefully.  I  was  a  mem 
ber  of  the  committee  that  framed  it,  and  1  gave  my  cordial  assent  to  the  re 
port.  I  am  free  to  say  that  I  think  it  is  the  best  bill  that  has  ever  been  re 
ported  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  for  the  construction  of  a  Pacific 
railroad.  I  say  this  with  entire  disinterestedness,  for  I  have  heretofore  re 
ported  several  mysetf,  and  I  believe  I  have  invariably  been  a  member  of  the 
committees  that  have  reported  such  bills.  I  am  glad  to  find  that  we  have 
progressed  to  such  an  extent  as  to  be  able  to  improve  on  the  former  bills  that 
have,  from  time  to  time,  been  brought  before  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 
This  may  not  be  perfect.  It  is  difficult  to  make  human  legislation  entirely 
perfect ;  at  any  rate,  to  so  construct  it  as  to  bring  about  an  entire  unanimity 
of  opinion  upon  a  question  that  involves,  to  some  extent,  selfish,  sectional, 
and  partisan  considerations.  But,  sir,  I  think  this  bill  is  fair.  First,  it  is 
fair  in  the  location  of  the  route,  as  between  the  different  sections.  The  ter 
mini  are  fixed.  Then  the  route  between  the  termini  is  to  be  left  to  the  con 
tractors  and  owners  of  the  road,  who  are  to  put  their  capital  into  it,  and,  for 
weal  or  for  woe,  are  to  be  responsible  for  its  management. 

What  is  the  objection  to  these  termini  ?  San  Francisco,  upon  the  Pacific, 
is  not  only  central,  but  it  is  the  great  commercial  mart,  the  great  concentra 
ting  point,  the  great  enti-epot  for  the  commerce  of  the  Pacific,  not  only  in 
the  present,  but  in  the  future.  That  point  was  selected  as  the  western  ter 
minus  for  the  reason  that  there  seemed  to  be  a  unanimous  sentiment  that 
whatever  might  be  the  starting-point  on  the  east,  the  system  would  not  be 
complete  until  it  should  reach  the  city  of  San  Francisco  on  the  west.  I  sug 
gested  myself,  in  the  committee,  the  selection  of  that  very  point ;  not  that  I 
had  any  objection  to  other  points ;  not  that  I  was  any  more  friendly  to  San 
Francisco  and  her  inhabitants  than  to  any  other  port  on  the  Pacific  ;  but  be 
cause  I  believe  that  to  be  the  commanding  port,  the  large  city  where  trade 
concentrates,  and  its  position  indicated  it  as  the  proper  terminus  on  the  Pa 
cific  Ocean. 

Then,  in  regard  to  the  eastern  terminus,  a  point  on  the  Missouri  Eiver  is 
selected  for  various  reasons.  One  is,  that  it  is  central  as  between  the  North 
and  South — as  nearly  central  LS  could  be  selected.  It  was  necessary  to  com 
mence  on  the  Missouri  Kiver,  if  you  were  going  to  take  a  central  route,  in 
order  that  the  starting-point  might  connect  with  navigation,  so  that  you 
might  reach  it  by  boats  in  carrying  your  iron,  your  supplies,  and  your  mate 
rials  for  the  commencement  and  the  construction  of  the  road.  It  was  essen 
tial  that  you  should  commence  at  a  point  of  navigation  so  that  you  could 
connect  with  the  sea-board.  If  you  start  it  at  a  point  back  in  the  interior 
five  hundred  or  a  thousand  miles,  as  it  is  proposed,  at  El  Paso,  from  the  nav 
igable  waters  of  the  Mississippi,  it  would  cost  you  more  money  to  carry  the 
iron,  provisions,  supplies,  and  men  to  that  starting-point,  than  it  would  to 
make  a  road  from  the  Mississippi  to  the  starting-point,  in  order  to  begin  the 
work.  In  that  case  it  would  be  a  matter  of  economy  to  make  a  road  to  your 
starting-point  in  order  to  begin.  Hence,  in  my  opinion,  it  would  be  an  act 
of  folly  to  think  of  starting  a  railroad  to  the  Pacific  at  a  point  eight  hundred 
or  a  thousand  miles  in  the  interior,  away  from  any  connection  with  naviga 
ble  water,  or  with  other  railroads  already  in  existence. 

For  these  reasons,  we  agreed  in  the  bill  to  commence  on  the  Missouri  Eiv 
er.  When  you  indicate  that  river,  a  little  diversity  of  opinion  arises  as  to 
what  point  on  the  river  shall  be  selected.  There  are  various  respectable, 
thriving  towns  on  either  bank  of  the  river,  each  of  which  thinks  it  is  the  ex 
act  position  where  the  road  ought  to  commence.  I  suppose  that  Kansas  City, 


374  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

Wyandott,  Western,  Leavenworth,  Atchison,  Platte's  Mouth  City,  Omaha, 
De  Soto,  Sioux  City,  and  various  other  towns  whose  names  have  not  become 
familiar  to  us,  and  have  found  no  resting-place  on  the  map,  each  thinks  that 
it  has  the  exact  place  where  the  road  should  begin.  Well,  sir,  I  do  not  de 
sire  to  show  any  preference  between  these  towns ;  either  of  them  would  suit 
me  very  well ;  and  we  leave  it  to  the  contractors  to  say  which  shall  be  the 
one.  We  leave  the  exact  eastern  terminus  open  for  the  reason  that  the  pub 
lic  interests  will  be  substantially  as  well  served  by  the  selection  of  the  one  as 
the  other.  It  is  not  so  at  the  western  terminus.  San  Francisco  does  not  oc 
cupy  that  relation  to  the  towns  on  the  Pacific  coast  that  these  little  towns  on 
the  Missouri  Eiver  do  to  the  country  east  of  the  Missouri.  The  public  have 
no  material  interest  in  the  question  whether  it  shall  start  at  the  mouth  of  the 
Kansas,  at  Weston,  at  Leavenworth,  at  St.  Joseph,  at  Platte's  Mouth,  or  at 
Sioux  City.  Either  connects  with  the  great  lines ;  either  would  be  substan 
tially  central  as  between  North  and  South.  So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I 
should  not  care  a  sixpence  which  of  those  towns  was  selected  as  the  starting- 
point,  because  they  start  there  upon  a  plain  that  stretches  for  eight  hundred 
miles,  and  can  connect  with  the  whole  railroad  system  of  the  country.  You 
can  go  directly  west.  You  can  bend  to  the  north  and  connect  with  the 
northern  roads,  or  bend  to  the  south  and  connect  with  the  southern  roads. 

The  senator  from  Georgia  (Mr.  Iverson)  would  be  satisfied,  as  I  understand, 
with  the  termini,  if  we  had  selected  one  intermediate  point,  so  as  to  indicate 
the  route  that  should  be  taken  between  the  termini.  I  understand  that  he 
would  be  satisfied  if  we  should  indicate  that  it  should  go  south  of  Santa  Fe, 
so  as  to  include  as  the  probable  line  the  Albuquerque  route,  or  the  one  on  the 
thirty-fifth  parallel,  or  the  one  south  of  it.  Sir,  I  am  free  to  say  that,  indi 
vidually,  I  should  have  no  objection  to  the  route  indicated  by  the  senator 
from  Georgia.  I  have  great  faith  that  the  Albuquerque  route  is  an  exceed 
ingly  favorable  one ;  favorable  in  its  grades,  in  the  shortness  of  its  distances, 
in  its  climate,  the  absence  of  deep  snow,  and  in  the  topography  of  the  coun 
try.  While  it  avoids  very  steep  grades,  it  furnishes,  perhaps,  as  much  of 
grass,  of  timber,  of  water,  of  materials  necessary  for  the  construction  and  re 
pair  of  the  road,  if  not  more,  than  any  other  route.  As  a  Northern  man, 
living  upon  the  great  line  of  the  lakes,  you  can  not  indicate  a  route  that  I 
think  would  subserve  our  interests,  and  the  great  interests  of  this  country, 
better  than  that ;  yet,  if  I  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  line  ought  to  go  on 
that  route  between  the  termini,  some  other  man  would  say  it  ought  to  go  on 
Governor  Stevens's  extreme  northern  route ;  some  one  else  would  say  it  ought 
to  go  on  the  South  Pass  route  ;  and  we  should  divide  the  friends  of  the  meas 
ure  as  to  the  point  at  which  the  road  should  pass  the  mountains — whether  at 
the  extreme  north,  at  the  centre,  the  Albuquerque  route,  or  the  further  south 
ern  one  down  in  Arizona — and  we  should  be  unable  to  decide  between  our 
selves  which  was  best. 

I  have  sometimes  thought  that  the  extreme  northern  route,  known  as  the 
Stevens'  route,  was  the  best,  as  furnishing  better  grass,  more  timber,  more 
water,  more  of  those  elements  necessary  in  constructing,  repairing,  operating, 
and  maintaining  a  road,  than  any  other.  I  think  now  that  the  preference, 
merely  upon  routes,  is  between  the  northern  or  Stevens's  route  on  the  one 
side,  and  the  Albuquerque  route  on  the  other.  Still,  as  I  never  expect  to  put 
a  dollar  of  money  into  the  road,  as  I  never  expect  to  have  any  agency  or  con 
nection  with  or  interest  in  it,  I  am  willing  to  leave  the  selection  of  the  route 
between  the  termini  to  those  who  are  to  put  their  fortunes  and  connect  their 
character  with  the  road,  and  to  be  responsible,  in  the  most  tender  of  all 
points,  if  they  make  a  mistake  in  the  selection.  But  for  these  considerations, 
I  should  have  cheerfully  yielded  to  the  suggestion  of  the  senator  from  Georgia 
to  fix  the  crossing-point  on  the  Rio  Grande  River. 


INTERNAL   IMPEOVEMENTS.  375 

But,  sir,  I  am  unwilling  to  lose  this  great  measure  merely  because  of  a  dif 
ference  of  opinion  as  to  what  shall  be  the  pass  selected  in  the  Kocky  Mount 
ains  through  which  the  road  shall  run.  I  believe  it  is  a  great  national  meas 
ure.  I  believe  it  is  the  greatest  practical  measure  now  pending  before  the 
country.  I  believe  that  we  have  arrived  at  that  period  in  our  history  when, 
our  great  substantial  interests  require  it.  The  interests  of  commerce,  the 
great  interests  of  travel  and  communication — those  still  greater  interests  that 
bind  the  Union  together,  and  are  to  make  and  preserve  the  continent  as  one 
and  indivisible — all  demand  that  this  road  shall  be  commenced,  prosecuted, 
and  completed  at  the  earliest  practicable  moment. 

I  am  unwilling  to  postpone  the  bill  until  next  December.  I  have  seen 
these  postponements  from  session  to  session  for  the  last  eight  or  ten  years, 
with  the  confident  assurance  every  year  that  at  the  next  session  we  should 
have  abundance  of  time  to  take  up  the  bill  and  act  upon  it.  Sir,  will  you 
be  better  prepared  at  the  next  session  than  now  ?  We  have  now  the  whole 
summer  before  us,  drawing  our  pay,  and  proposing  to  perform  no  service. 
Next  December  you  will  have  but  ninety  days,  with  all  the  unfinished  busi 
ness  left  over,  your  appropriation  bills  on  hand,  and  not  only  the  regular 
bills,  but  the  new  deficiency  bill ;  and  you  will  postpone  this  measure  again 
for  the  want  of  time  to  consider  it  then.  I  think,  sir,  we  had  better  grapple 
with  the  difficulties  that  surround  this  question  now,  when  it  is  fairly  before 
us,  when  we  have  time  to  consider  it,  and  when  I  think  we  can  act  upon  it 
as  dispassionately,  as  calmly,  as  wisely,  as  we  shall  ever  be  able  to  do. 

I  have  regretted  to  sec  the  question  of  sectional  advantages  brought  into 
this  discussion.  If  you  are  to  have  but  one  road,  fairness  and  justice  would 
plainly  indicate  that  that  one  should  be  located  as  near  the  centre  as  practi 
cable.  The  Missouri  River  is  as  near  the  centre  and  the  line  of  this  road  is 
as  near  as  it  can  be  made ;  and  if  there  is  but  one  to  be  made,  the  route  now 
indicated,  in  my  opinion,  is  fair,  is  just,  and  ought  to  be  taken.  I  have  here 
tofore  been  of  the  opinion  that  we  ought  to  have  three  roads  :  one  in  the  cen 
tre,  one  in  the  extreme  south,  and  one  in  the  extreme  north.  If  I  thought 
we  could  carry  the  three,  and  could  execute  them  in  any  reasonable  time,  I 
would  now  adhere  to  that  policy  and  prefer  it ;  but  I  have  seen  enough  here 
during  this  session  of  Congress  to  satisfy  me  that  but  one  can  pass,  and  to 
ask  for  three  at  this  time  is  to  lose  the  whole.  Believing  that  that  is  the 
temper,  that  that  is  the  feeling,  and,  I  will  say,  the  judgment  of  the  members 
of  both  houses  of  Congress,  I  prefer  to  take  one  road  rather  than  to  lose  all 
in  the  vain  attempt  to  get  three.  If  there  were  to  be  three,  of  course  the 
one  indicated  in  this  bill  would  be  the  central ;  one  would  be  north  of  it,  and 
another  south  of  it.  But  if  there  is  to  be  but  one,  the  central  one  should  be 
taken ;  for  the  north,  by  bending  a  little  down  south,  can  join  it ;  and  the 
south,  by  leaning  a  little  to  the  north,  can  unite  with  it  too ;  and  our  South 
ern  friends  ought  to  be  able  to  bend  and  lean  a  little,  as  well  as  to  require 
us  to  bend  and  lean  all  the  time,  in  order  to  join  them.  The  central  position 
is  the  just  one,  if  there  is  to  be  but  one  road.  The  concession  should  be  as 
much  on  the  one  side  as  on  the  other.  I  am  ready  to  meet  gentlemen  half 
way  on  every  question  that  does  not  violate  principle,  and  they  ought  not  to 
ask  us  to  meet  them  more  than  halfway  where  there  is  no  principle  involved, 
and  nothing  but  expediency. 

Then,  sir,  why  not  unite  upon  this  bill  ?  We  are  told  it  is  going  to  involve 
the  government  of  the  United  States  in  countless  millions  of  expenditure. 
How  is  that?  Certainly  not  under  this  bill,  not  by  authority  of  this  bill,  not 
without  violating  this  bill.  The  bill  under  consideration  provides  that  when 
a  section  of  the  road  shall  be  made,  the  government  may  advance  a  portion 
of  the  lands,  and  $12,500  per  mile  in  bonds  on  the  section  thus  made,  in  or 
der  to  aid  in  the  construction  of  the  next,  holding  a  lien  upon  the  road  for 


376  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

the  refunding  of  the  money  thus  advanced.  Under  this  bill  it  is  not  possible 
that  the  contractors  can  ever  obtain  more  than  $12,500  per  mile  on  each 
mile  of  the  road  that  is  completed.  It  is,  therefore,  very  easy  to  compute 
the  cost  to  the  government.  Take  the  length  of  the  road  in  miles,  and  multi 
ply  it  by  $12,500,  and  you  have  the  cost.  If  you  make  the  computation,  you 
will  find  it  will  come  to  a  fraction  over  $20,000,000.  The  limitation  in  the 
bill  is,  that  in  no  event  shall  it  exceed  $25,000,000.  Therefore,  by  the  terms 
of  the  bill,  the  undertaking  of  the  government  is  confined  to  $25,000,000; 
and,  by  the  calculation,  it  will  be  less  than  that  sum.  Is  that  a  sum  that 
would  bankrupt  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  ? 

I  predict  to  you  now,  sir,  that  the  Mormon  campaign  has  cost,  and  has  led 
to  engagements  and  undertakings  that,  when  redeemed,  will  cost  more  than 
$25,000,000,  if  not  double  that  sum.  During  the  last  six  months,  on  account 
of  the  Mormon  rebellion,  expenses  have  been  paid  and  undertakings  have 
been  assumed  which  will  cost  this  government  more  than  the  total  expendi 
ture  which  can  possibly  be  made  in  conformity  with  the  provisions  of  this 
bill.  If  you  had  had  this  railroad  made  you  would  have  saved  the  whole 
cost  which  the  government  is  to  advance  in  this  little  Mormon  war  alone. 
If  you  have  a  general  Indian  war  in  the  mountains,  it  will  cost  you  twice  the 
amount  called  for  by  this  bill.  If  you  should  have  a  war  with  a  European 
power,  the  construction  of  this  road  would  save  many  fold  its  cost  in  the  trans 
portation  of  troops  and  munitions  of  war  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  in  carrying  on 
your  operations. 

In  an  economical  point  of  view  I  look  upon  it  as  a  wise  measure.  It  is 
one  of  economy  as  a  war  measure  alone,  or  as  a  peace  measure  for  the  pur 
pose  of  preventing  a  war.  Whether  viewed  as  a  war  measure,  to  enable  you 
to  check  rebellion  in  a  Territory,  or  hostilities  with  the  Indians,  or  to  carry 
on  vigorously  a  war  with  a  European  power,  or  viewed  as  a  peace  measure, 
it  is  a  wise  policy,  dictated  by  every  consideration  of  convenience  and  public 
good. 

Again,  sir,  in  carrying  the  mails,  it  is  an  economical  measure.  As  the 
senator  from  Georgia  has  demonstrated,  the  cost  of  carrying  the  mails  alone 
to  the  Pacific  Ocean  for  thirty  years,  under  the  present  contracts,  is  double 
the  amount  of  the  whole  expenditure  under  this  bill  for  the  same  time  in  the 
construction  and  working  of  the  road.  In  the  transportation  of  mails,  then, 
it  would  save  twice  its  cost.  The  transportation  of  army  aud  navy  supplies 
would  swell  the  amount  to  three  or  four  fold.  How  many  years  will  it  be 
before  the  government  will  receive  back,  in  transportation,  the  whole  cost  of 
this  advance  of  aid  in  the  construction  of  the  road  ? 

But,  sir,  some  gentlemen  think  it  is  an  unsound  policy,  leading  to  the  doc 
trine  of  internal  improvements  by  the  federal  government  within  the  differ 
ent  states  of  the  Union.  We  are  told  we  must  continue  the  road  to  the  lim 
its  of  the  Territories,  and  not  extend  it  into  the  states,  because  it  is  supposed 
that  entering  a  state  with  this  contract  violates  some  great  principle  of  state- 
rights.  Mr.  President,  the  committee  considered  that  proposition,  and  they 
avoided  that  objection  in  the  estimation  of  the  most  strict,  rigid,  tight-laced 
State-rights  men  that  we  have  in  the  body.  We  struck  out  the  provision 
in  the  bill  first  drawn,  that  the  President  should  contract  for  the  construction 
of  a  railroad  from  the  Missouri  River  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  followed  an 
example  that  we  found  on  the  statute-book  for  carrying  the  mails  from  Alex 
andria  to  Richmond,  Virginia — an  act  passed  about  the  time  when  the  reso 
lutions  of  1798  were  adopted,  and  the  report  of  1799  was  made — an  act  that 
we  thought  came  exactly  within  the  spirit  of  those  resolutions.  That  act,  ac 
cording  to  my  recollection,  was,  that  the  Department  be  authorized  to  con 
tract  for  the  transportation  of  the  United  States  mail  by  four-horse  post-coach 
es,  with  closed  backs,  so  as  to  protect  it  from  the  weather  and  rain,  from  Al- 


INTERNAL   IMPROVEMENTS.  377 

exandria  to  Richmond,  in  the  State  of  Virginia.  It  occurred  to  this  com 
mittee  that  if  it  had  been  the  custom,  from  the  beginning  of  this  government 
to  this  day,  to  make  contracts  for  the  transportation  of  the  mails  in  four-horse 
post-coaches,  built  in  a  particular  manner,  and  the  contractor  left  to  furnish 
his  own  coaches  and  his  own  horses,  and  his  own  means  of  transportation,  we 
might  make  a  similar  contract  for  the  transportation  of  the  mails  by  railroad 
from  one  point  to  another,  leaving  the  contractor  to  make  his  own  railroad, 
and  furnish  his  own  cars,  and  comply  with  the  terms  of  the  contract. 

There  is  nothing  in  this  bill  that  violates  any  one  principle  which  has  pre 
vailed  in  every  mail  contract  that  has  been  made,  from  the  days  of  Dr. 
Franklin  down  to  the  elevation  of  James  Buchanan  to  the  presidency.  Ev 
ery  contract  for  carrying  the  mail  by  horse,  from  such  a  point  to  such  a  point, 
in  saddle-bags,  involves  the  same  principle.  Every  contract  for  carrying  it 
from  such  a  point  to  such  a  point  in  two-horse  hacks,  with  a  covering  to  pro 
tect  it  from  the  storm,  involves  the  same  principle.  Every  contract  to  car 
ry  it  from  such  a  point  to  such  a  point  in  four-horse  coaches  of  a  particular 
description,  involves  the  same  principle.  You  contracted  to  carry  the  mails 
from  New  York  to  Liverpool  in  ships  of  two  thousand  tons  each,  to  be  con 
structed  according  to  a  model  prescribed  by  the  Navy  Department,  leaving 
the  contractor  to  furnish  his  own  ships,  and  receive  so  much  pay.  That  in 
volves  the  same  principle. 

You  have,  therefore,  carried  out  the  principle  of  this  bill  in  every  contract 
you  have  ever  had  for  mails,  whether  it  be  upon  the  land  or  upon  the  water. 
In  every  mail  contract  you  have  had,  you  have  carried  out  the  identical  prin 
ciple  involved  in  this  bill — simply  the  right  to  contract  for  the  transportation 
of  the  United  States  mails,  troops,  munitions  of  war,  army  and  navy  supplies, 
at  fair  prices,  in  the  manner  you  prescribed,  leaving  the  contracting  party  to 
furnish  the  mode  and  means  of  transportation.  That  is  all  there  is  in  it.  I 
do  not  see  how  it  can  violate  any  party  creed  ;  how  it  can  violate  any  prin 
ciple  of  state-rights ;  how  it  can  interfere  with  any  man's  conscientious  scru 
ples.  Then,  sir,  where  is  the  objection  ? 

If  you  look  on  this  as  a  measure  of  economy  and  a  commercial  measure, 
the  argument  is  all  in  favor  of  the  bill.  It  is  true,  the  senator  from  Massa 
chusetts  has  suggested  that  it  is  idle  to  suppose  that  the  trade  of  China  is  to 
centre  in  San  Francisco,  and  then  pay  sixty  dollars  a  ton  for  transportation 
across  the  continent  by  a  railroad  to  Boston.  It  was  very  natural  that  he 
should  indicate  Boston,  as  my  friend  from  Georgia  might,  perhaps,  have 
thought  of  Savannah,  or  my  friend  from  South  Carolina  might  have  indi 
cated  Charleston,  or  the  senator  from  Louisiana  might  have  indicated  New 
Orleans.  But  I,  living  at  the  head  of  the  great  lakes,  would  have  made  the 
computation  from  Chicago,  and  my  friend  from  Missouri  would  have  thought 
it  would  have  been  very  well,  perhaps,  to  take  it  from  St.  Louis.  When  you 
are  making  this  computation,  I  respectfully  submit  you  must  make  the  cal 
culation  from  the  sea-board  to  the  centre  of  the  continent,  and  not  charge 
transportation  all  the  way  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  ;  for  suppose  you 
do  not  construct  this  road,  and  these  goods  come  by  ship  to  Boston,  it  will 
cost  something  to  take  them  by  railroad  to  Chicago,  and  a  little  more  to  take 
them  by  railroad  to  the  Missouri  River,  half  way  back  to  San  Francisco 
again.  If  you  select  the  centre  of  the  continent,  the  great  heart  and  centre 
of  the  Republic — the  Mississippi  Valley — as  the  point  at  which  you  are  to 
concentrate  your  trade,  and  from  which  it  is  to  diverge,  you  will  find  that  the 
transportation  of  it  by  railroad  would  not  be  much  greater  from  San  Fran 
cisco  than  from  Boston.  It  would  be  nearly  the  same  from  the  Pacific  that 
it  is  from  the  Atlantic ;  and  the  calculation  must  be  made  in  that  point  of 
view.  There  is  the  centre  of  consumption,  and  the  centre  of  those  great  prod 
ucts  that  are  sent  abroad  in  all  quarters  to  pay  for  articles  imported.  The 


3*78  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

centre  of  production,  the  centre  of  consumption,  the  future  centre  of  the  pop 
ulation  of  the  continent,  is  the  point  to  which,  and  from  which,  your  calcula 
tion  should  be  made. 

Then,  sir,  if  it  costs  sixty  dollars  per  ton  for  transportation  from  San  Fran 
cisco  to  Boston  by  railroad,  half  way  you  may  say  it  will  cost  thirty  dollars 
a  ton.  The  result,  then,  of  coming  from  San  Francisco  to  the  centre  by  rail 
road  would  be  to  save  transportation  by  ship  from  San  Francisco  to  Boston, 
in  addition  to  the  railroad  transportation  into  the  interior. 

But,  sir,  I  dissent  from  a  portion  of  the  gentleman's  argument,  so  far  as  it 
relates  to  the  transportation  even  from  San  Francisco  to  Boston.  I  admit 
that  heavy  articles  of  cheap  value  and  great  bulk  would  go  by  ship,  that 
being  the  cheapest  mode  of  communication ;  but  light  articles,  costly  articles, 
expensive  articles,  those  demanded  immediately,  and  subject  to  decay  fi'om 
long  voyages  and  delays,  would  come  directly  across  by  railroad,  and  what 
you  would  save  in  time  would  be  more  than  the  extra  expense  of  the  trans 
portation.  You  must  add  to  that  the  risk  of  the  tropics,  which  destroys 
many  articles,  and  the  process  which  is  necessaiy  to  be  gone  through  with  to 
prepare  articles  for  the  sea-voyage  is  to  be  taken  into  the  account.  I  have 
had  occasion  to  witness  that  evil  in  one  article  of  beverage  very  familiar  to 
you  all.  Let  any  man  take  one  cup  of  tea  that  came  from  China  to  Russia 
overland,  without  passing  twice  under  the  equator,  and  he  will  never  be  rec 
onciled  to  a  cup  of  tea  that  has  passed  under  the  equator.  The  genuine  ar 
ticle,  that  has  not  been  manipulated  and  prepared  to  pass  under  the  equator, 
is  worth  tenfold  more  than  that  which  we  receive  here.  Preparation  is  nec 
essary  to  enable  it  to  pass  the  tropics,  and  the  long,  damp  voyage  makes  as 
much  difference  in  the  article  of  tea  as  the  difference  between  a  green  apple 
and  a  dried  apple,  green  corn  and  dried  corn,  sent  abroad.  So  you  will  find 
it  to  be  with  fruits  ;  so  it  will  be  with  all  the  expensive  and  precious  articles, 
and  especially  those  liable  to  decay  and  to  injury,  either  by  exposure  to  a 
tropical  climate  or  to  the  moisture  of  a  long  sea-voyage. 

Then,  sir,  in  a  commercial  point  of  view,  this  road  will  be  of  vast  import 
ance.  There  is  another  consideration  that  I  will  allude  to  for  a  moment. 
It  will  extend  our  trade  more  than  any  other  measure  that  you  can  devise, 
certainly  more  than  any  one  that  you  now  have  in  contemplation.  The  peo 
ple  are  all  anxious  for  the  annexation  of  Cuba  as  soon  as  it  can  be  obtained 
on  fair  and  honorable  terms — and  why?  In  order  to  get  the  small,  pitiful 
trade  of  that  island.  We  all  talk  about  the  great  importance  of  Central 
America  in  order  to  extend  our  commerce ;  it  is  valuable  to  the  extent  it 
goes.  But  Cuba,  Central  America,  and  all  the  islands  surrounding  them  put 
together,  are  not  a  thousandth  part  of  the  value  of  the  great  East  India  trade 
that  would  be  drawn  first  to  our  western  coast,  and  then  across  to  the  Valley 
of  the  Mississippi,  if  this  railroad  be  constructed.  Sir,  if  we  intend  to  extend 
our  commerce — if  we  intend  to  make  the  great  ports  of  the  world  tributary 
to  our  wealth,  we  must  prosecute  our  trade  eastward  or  westward,  as  you 
please ;  we  must  penetrate  the  Pacific,  its  islands,  and  its  continent,  where  the 
great  mass  of  the  human  family  reside — where  the  articles  that  have  built  up 
the  powerful  nations  of  the  world  have  always  come  from.  That  is  the  di 
rection  in  which  we  should  look  for  the  expansion  of  our  commerce  and  of 
our  trade.  That  is  the  direction  our  public  policy  should  take — a  direction 
that  is  facilitated  by  the  great  work  now  proposed  to  be  made. 

I  care  not  whether  you  look  at  it  in  a  commercial  point  of  view,  as  a  mat 
ter  of  administrative  economy  at  home,  as  a  question  of  military  defense,  or 
in  reference  to  the  building  up  of  the  national  wealth,  and  power,  and  glory ; 
it  is  the  great  measure  of  the  age — a  measure  that  in  my  opinion  has  been 
postponed  too  long — and  I  frankly  confess  to  you  that  I  regard  the  postpone 
ment  to  next  December  to  mean  till  after  the  next  presidential  election.  No 


INTERNAL   IMPROVEMENTS.  379 

man  hopes  or  expects,  when  you  have  not  time  to  pass  it  in  the  early  spring, 
at  the  long  session,  that  you  are  going  to  consider  it  at  the  short  session. 
When  you  come  here  at  the  next  session,  the  objection  will  be  that  you  must 
not  bring  forward  a  measure  of  this  magnitude,  because  it  will  affect  the  po 
litical  relations  of  parties,  and  it  will  be  postponed  then,  as  it  was  two  years 
ago,  to  give  the  glory  to  the  incoming  administration,  each  party  probably 
thinking  that  it  would  have  the  honor  of  carrying  out  the  measure.  Hence, 
sir,  I  regard  the  proposition  of  postponement  till  December  to  mean  till  after 
the  election  of  1860. 

I  desire  to  see  all  the  pledges  made  in  the  last  contest  redeemed  during 
this  term,  and  let  the  next  president,  and  the  parties  under  him,  redeem  the 
pledges  and  obligations  assumed  during  the  next  campaign.  The  people  of 
all  parties  at  the  last  presidential  election  decreed  that  this  road  was  to  be 
made.  The  question  is  now  before  us.  We  have  time  to  consider  it.  We 
have  all  the  means  necessary,  as  much  now  as  we  can  have  at  any  other 
time.  The  senator  from  Massachusetts  intimates  that,  the  treasury  being 
bankrupt  now,  we  can  not  afford  the  money.  That  senator  also  remarked 
that  we  were  just  emerging  from  a  severe  commercial  crisis — a  great  com 
mercial  revulsion — which  had  carried  bankruptcy  in  its  train.  If  we  have 
just  emerged  from  it,  if  we  have  passed  it,  this  is  the  very  time  of  all  others 
when  a  great  enterprise  should  be  begun.  It  might  have  been  argued  when 
we  saw  that  crisis  coming,  before  it  reached  us,  that  we  should  furl  our  sails 
and  trim  our  ship  for  the  approaching  storm ;  but  when  it  has  exhausted  its 
rage,  when  all  the  mischief  has  been  done  that  could  be  inflicted,  when  the 
bright  sun  of  day  is  breaking  forth,  when  the  sea  is  becoming  calm,  and 
there  is  but  little  visible  of  the  past  tempest,  when  the  nausea  of  sea-sick 
ness  is  succeeded  by  joyous  exhilaration,  inspired  by  the  hope  of  a  fair  voy 
age,  let  men  feel  elated  and  be  ready  to  commence  a  great  work  like  this,  §o 
as  to  complete  it  before  another  commercial  crisis  or  revulsion  shall  come 
upon  us. 

Sir,  if  you  pass  this  bill,  no  money  can  be  expended  under  it  until  one  sec 
tion  of  the  road  has  been  made.  The  surveys  must  be  completed,  the  route 
must  be  located,  the  land  set  aside  and  surveyed,  and  a  section  of  the  road 
made,  before  a  dollar  can  be  drawn  from  the  treasury.  If  you  can  pass  the 
bill  now,  it  can  not  make  any  drain  on  the  treasury  for  at  least  two  years 
to  come  ;  and  who  doubts  that  all  the  effects  of  the  late  crisis  will  have  pass 
ed  away  before  the  expiration  of  those  two  years. 

Mr.  President,  this  is  the  auspicious  time,  either  with  a  view  to  the  inter 
ests  of  the  country,  or  to  that  stagnation  which  exists  between  political  par 
ties,  which  is  calculated  to  make  it  a  measure  of  the  country  rather  than  a 
partisan  measure,  or  to  the  commercial  and  monetary  affairs  of  the  nation,  or 
with  reference  to  the  future.  Look  upon  it  in  any  point  of  view,  now  is  the 
time  ;  and  I  am  glad  that  the  senator  from  Louisiana  has  indicated,  as  I  am 
told  he  has,  -that  the  motion  for  postponement  is  a  test  question ;  for  I  con 
fess  I  shall  regard  it  as  a  test  vote  on  a  Pacific  railroad  during  this  term, 
whatever  it  may  be  in  the  future.  I  hope  that  we  shall  pass  the  bill  now. 


380  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

THE    CAMPAIGN    OF    1858. 

THE  reader  who  has  given  attention  to  those  pages  of  this 
book  relating  to  the  Lecompton  controversy  in  Congress  will 
of  course  be  informed  of  many  of  the  events  connected  with 
and  leading  to  the  most  memorable  election  held  in  the  State 
of  Illinois  during  the  year  1858.  To  many  persons,  however, 
it  will  be  serviceable  that,  before  entering  upon  the  description 
Of  the  contest  of  that  year,  a  brief  repetition  of  some  leading 
facts,  and  a  detailed  history  of  others,  should  be  given  now. 

When  the  announcement  was  made  by  telegraph  from  St. 
Louis  that  Mr.  John  Calhoun  and  his  associates  in  the  Lecomp 
ton  Convention  had,  for  the  purpose  of  securing  for  their  mon 
strosity  a  legal  substance  which  it  could  never  obtain  at  the 
hands  of  the  people,  wantonly  and  wickedly  resolved  to  de 
clare  the  Lecompton  Constitution  as  already  made,  and  wait 
ing  only  the  sanction  of  Congress  to  erect  it  as  the  government 
of  the  people  of  the  unfortunate  Territory,  there  was  in  all  Illi 
nois  a  universal  expression  of  indignation.  Calhoun  had  for 
many  years  been  an  active  Democrat  in  the  central  part  of  the 
state,  and  he  was  believed  to  be  a  man  who,  whatever  other 
failings  and  imperfections  he  might  have,  would  never  consent, 
under  any  circumstances,  to  embarrass  or  injure  his  party 
friends  by  rash  or  unjustifiable  political  action.  In  short,  he 
was  esteemed  by  all  as  a  "  safe  and  reliable"  man,  who  could 
not  be  seduced,  under  any  state  of  things,  to  do  political  acts, 
the  effect  of  which  was  to  destroy,  or,  to  say  the  least,  embar 
rass  and  place  his  party  in  a  most  unenviable  position  before 
the  country.  For  many  days  those  who  had  a  personal  ac 
quaintance  with  the  "  Lord  President,"  as  he  was  subsequent 
ly  styled  by  the  papers  of  the  state,  declined  giving  credit  to 
the  reports  of  the  action  of  the  convention,  but  these  doubts 
were  but  of  short  duration ;  letters  from  a  number  of  persons 
in  the  Territory,  and  from  Calhoun  himself,  soon  removed  all 
question,  not  only  as  to  the  action  of  the  convention,  but  also 
as  to  the  full  participation  of  Calhoun  in  the  iniquitous  pro 
ceedings. 


THE   CAMPAIGN   OF    1858.  381 

From  one  end  of  the  state  to  the  other,  the  Democratic 
newspaper  press  immediately  and  determinedly  denounced  the 
action  of  the  convention,  and  of  the  daring  attempt  by  Cal- 
houn  and  his  associates  to  defraud  the  people  of  Kansas  of  a 
sacred  right ;  to  violate  the  entire  spirit  of  the  Kansas-Nebras 
ka  Act ;  to  repudiate  the  saving  and  most  peculiar  principle 
of  the  Cincinnati  platform  ;  to  disregard  and  contemptuously 
set  aside  the  peremptory  and  pointed  instructions  of  Mr.  Bu 
chanan,  and  the  earnest  advice  and  appeals  of  Governor  Walker. 
In  the  very  expressive  language  of  Mr.  Buchanan,  no  Demo 
crat  in  Illinois  "  had  any  serious  doubt"  but  that  the  conven 
tion  would  submit  the  Constitution  to  the  people,  and  each 
Democrat  in  the  state  felt  that  the  convention,  in  utterly  scorn 
ing  and  repudiating  the  instructions  of  Mr.  Buchanan  to  Gov 
ernor  Walker,  had  sought,  through  pure  wantonness,  to  treat 
the  instructions  of  the  venerable  President  as  the  "  fogyism" 
of  old  age.  The  Chicago  Times,  Springfield  Register ~,  Quincy 
Herald,  Galena  Courier,  Peoria  News,  and  Alton  Democrat — 
the  daily  Democratic  papers  of  the  state — without  any  previ 
ous  consultation  or  understanding,  simultaneously,  and  with  all 
their  power,  proclaimed  the  indignant  feeling  of  the  Democ 
racy  in  their  respective  localities,  and  called  upon  the  party  to 
take  immediate  action,  by  meetings  and  resolutions,  to  sustain 
Mr.  Buchanan  and  the  Cincinnati  platform  against  the  cow 
ardly  and  insolent  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  Lecompton  Con 
vention  to  treat  both  with  sovereign  contempt.  The  weekly 
Democratic  press  of  the  state  followed  with  great  unanimity, 
and  within  ten  days  from  the  receipt  of  the  first  intelligence 
of  the  action  of  the  Lecompton  Convention,  Illinois,  speak 
ing  through  the  Democratic  press,  had  become  unanimously 
pledged  to  the  support  and  defense  of  the  President  in  his  ef 
forts  to  preserve  the  Cincinnati  platform  pure  and  inviolate. 
No  Democrat  in  Illinois  believed  the  silly  slander  of  a  North 
ern  senator,  that  "  the  administration  was  a  little  weak  in  the 
knees ;"  and  all  relied  implicitly  that  the  policy  of  the  govern 
ment,  so  clearly  and  emphatically  enunciated  in  the  speeches 
of  Governor  Walker  and  in  his  instructions  from  the  hand  of 
General  Cass,  would  be  carried  out  to  the  last  extremity,  there 
by  vindicating  the  power  and  majesty  of  the  great  principle 
embraced  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  so  cordially  and  unani 
mously  ratified  and  adopted  by  the  Democracy  at  Cincinnati. 


382  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

There  was  not  one  Democratic  newspaper  in  all  Illinois  that 
did  not,  with  all  its  power,  sustain  the  President  and  Governor 
Walker  against  the  unfortunate  and  ill-judged  action  of  John 
Calhoun  and  his  associates  at  Lecompton. 

Judge  Douglas  was  at  that  time  in  Chicago ;  though  no  pub 
lic  meeting  was  held  at  which  he  could  offer  his  views,  there 
was  no  doubt  entertained  by  any  one,  Democrat  or  Republi 
can,  as  to  his  determination  to  sustain  the  President  in  the 
policy  so  recently  declared  by  the  administration.  In  a  few 
days  Democratic  newspapers  in  other  states  came  into  Illinois 
sustaining  the  administration  and  denouncing  the  Lecompton- 
ites.  From  the  entire  Northwest  there  was  not  a  Democratic 
paper  which  opposed  the  administration  by  sustaining  Cal 
houn.  The  papers  of  New  York  gave  to  the  Democracy  of 
Illinois  the  most  unbounded  assurance  that  the  Democracy  of 
that  state  would  unite  with  their  Western  brethren  in  a  vigor 
ous  support  of  the  President.  Some  weeks  later,  the  Washing 
ton  Union,  which,  since  the  action  of  the  Kansas  Convention, 
had  remained  silent,  appeared  with  an  elaborate  editorial,  claim 
ing  in  behalf  of  the  slaveholder  the  constitutional  right  to  carry 
his  slaves  into  any  state  or  Territory  of  the  United  States,  and 
hold  them  in  such  state  or  Territory  by  virtue  of  a  constitu 
tional  right,  in  defiance  of  the  laws  of  such  state  or  Territory. 
As  this  matter  has  been  treated  of  in  one  of  Mr.  Douglas's 
speeches,  it  is  unnecessary  to  do  more  here  than  to  repeat  that 
this  article  of  the  Union  w^as  the  first  indication  that  the  De 
mocracy  of  Illinois  had  that  any  change  was  contemplated  in 
the  policy  of  the  administration ;  and  following  immediately 
upon  this  strange  declaration  of  the  most  unsound  and  unten 
able  propositions  was  a  quasi  endorsement  of  the  Lecompton 
fraud,  and  a  suggestion  that  the  best  course  to  pursue  was  to 
acquiesce  in  it,  and  thus  get  rid  of  a  "  distracting  question." 
Still,  so  complete  had  been  Mr.  Buchanan's  committal  to  the 
principles  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act ;  so  acknowledged  and 
boasted  of  General  Cass's  devotion  to  unrestrained  squatter 
sovereignty;  so  well  known  Mr.  Cobb's  liberal  views,  pro 
claimed  so  eloquently  upon  the  hills  and  in  the  valleys  of  Penn 
sylvania  during  1856  ;  so  emphatic  had  been  Mr.  Toucey's  en 
dorsement  of  the  right  of  self-government,  that  human  intellect 
refused  to  understand  how,  in  one  moment,  and  without  any 
rational  pretense  or  occasion,  an  administration  could  thus 


THE    CAMPAIGN    OF    1858.  383 

suddenly  give  the  negative  to  its  past  history  and  official  acts, 
and  render  ridiculous  at  least  a  majority  of  its  members  by 
making  them  active  supporters  of  proceedings  planned  and 
perpetrated  in  positive  conflict  with  their  opinions  and  speech 
es  during  a  long,  excited,  and  severe  political  contest  of  but 
very  recent  date. 

Up  to  the  appearance  of  these  articles  in  the  Washington 
Union,  the  Republican  party  had  been  panic-stricken.  The 
only  hope  that  that  party  could  have  had  of  perpetuating  its 
existence  in  the  Northwest  was  a  want  of  fidelity  on  the  part 
of  the  Democracy  to  the  Cincinnati  platform ;  and  when  the 
Democracy  of  the  Northwest,  without  a  dissenting  voice,  united 
in  sustaining  the  administration  in  its  Kansas  policy  and  in  re 
pudiating  the  action  of  the  Lecompton  Convention,  because  it 
violated  the  Cincinnati  platform,  that  party  saw.  its  own  ex 
tinction  as  plainly  as  it  could  be  written.  Its  first  hope  was 
that  Douglas,  with  a  view  of  being  considered  the  peculiar 
friend  of  the  South,  would  sustain  the  Lecompton  Convention. 
That  hope  being  dissipated,  the  Republican  party  was  prepar 
ing  for  its  demise,  when,  from  a  quarter  most  unexpected,  came 
words  of  cheering  consolation,  of  hope,  and  of  future  glory. 
There  is  no  use  in  disguising  the  fact,  even  were  it  possible  to 
do  so,  that,  had  the  administration,  in  December,  1857,  remain 
ed  true  to  its  previously  maintained  policy,  and  urged  upon 
Congress  the  duty  of  disregarding  any  and  all  propositions  for 
the  admission  of  Kansas  tainted  with  fraud,  and  not  approved 
by  the  free  and  deliberate  choice  of  the  people,  the  Republican 
party  would  have  virtually  ceased  to  exist  as  an  organization 
in  the  Northwestern  States.  It  would  have  at  once  been  re 
duced  to  a  mere  handful  of  abolition  fanatics,  who  by  educa 
tion,  as  well  as  natural  tastes,  habits,  and  associations,  will  al 
ways  cling  to  the  theory  that  the  only  way  of  elevating  the 
negro  is  by  removing  every  law,  custom,  or  other  hinderance 
to  the  degradation  of  the  white  man  to  the  level  of  the  negro. 
The  thousands  who  had  by  their  votes,  during  the  previous 
three  years,  given  a  consequence  and  a  power  to  the  Repub 
lican  party,  because  of  a  sincere  belief  that  the  policy  of  the 
Democratic  party  had  been  and  would  continue  to  be  shaped 
and  changed  to  promote  the  ends  and  purposes  of  the  South 
as  opposed  to  those  of  the  North,  upon  the  official  declaration 
by  the  President  that  he  would  not  sanction  or  approve  of 


384  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

fraud,  nor  consent  to  a  violation  of  the  leading  principle  to 
which  he  owed  his  own  election,  even  to  secure  the  admission 
of  another  slave  state,  would  have  abandoned  the  Republican 
party  and  rallied  under  the  Democratic  flag,  having  no  longer 
any  doubt  of  the  honesty  of  their  party.  But  no  such  course 
was  pursued  by  the  President.  He  did  give  his  official  ap 
proval  to  the  result  of  fraud ;  he  did  give  his  executive  recom 
mendation  to  the  completion  of  the  violation  of  the  Cincinnati 
platform  by  the  admission  of  a  state  under  a  Constitution  to 
which  the  people  were  not  only  no  party,  but  which  had  been 
kept  from  them  because  it  was  known  they  would  repudiate 
it.  Hence  these  men,  instead  of  being  restored  to  the  Demo 
cratic  party  by  a  prompt  vindication  of  its  honesty  and  devo 
tion  to  principle,  were  repelled,  and  confirmed  in  their  impres 
sion  that  the  Democratic  party  had  but  one  principle,  and  that 
was  to  promote  the  ends  of  slavery.  The  golden  opportunity 
of  putting  an  end  to  an  organization  which,  in  the  hands  of  the 
unprincipled  managers  who  have  heretofore  and  ever  will  con 
trol  its  movements,  must  be  dangerous  to  the  peace  and  pros 
perity  of  the  nation  and  to  the  supremacy  of  the  Constitution, 
was  neglected  and  lost.  The  subsequent  action  of  Congress, 
of  the  executive  and  his  cabinet,  and  of  some  of  the  Northern 
representatives  of  the  Democracy,  supplied  the  Republicans 
with  sufficient  proof  to  enable  them  to  argue  with  plausibility 
that  the  Democratic  party  was  one  devoted  to  the  interests  of 
the  slaveholding  population  of  the  Southern  States. 

The  annual  message  of  Mr.  Buchanan,  in  which  he  formally 
proclaimed  his  approval  of  Lecomptonism,  was  received  with  a 
most  depressing  effect  upon  the  party  in  Illinois.  Though  he 
had  never  been  the  choice  of  the  party  in  Illinois,  yet,  on  ac 
count  of  his  advanced  age,  and  the  fact  that  he  must  have  felt 
how  many  risks  the  party  had  always  undertaken  in  advancing 
him  from  one  high  position  to  another,  despite  the  absence  of 
all  personal  popularity  on  his  part,  and  want  of  striking  quali 
ties  in  his  character,  Democrats  in  the  West  entertained  that 
respect  for  him  which  years  and  long  service  always  excite  in 
the  breasts  of  an  intelligent  and  refined  people.  While  they 
deplored  what  they  could  not  but  regard  as  a  great  error, 
viewed  as  a  matter  of  governmental  as  well  as  party  policy, 
yet  no  word  of  unkindness  or  reproach  was  uttered.  The  mes 
sage  was  published  in  all  the  papers  of  the  state ;  and  while  the 


THE   CAMPAIGN    OF    1858.  385 

Republicans  were  jubilant  over  it,  the  Democratic  papers  pub 
lished  it  silently — one  only,  a  weekly  paper,  edited  by  a  federal 
office-holder,  venturing  very  slight  approval  of  it.  The  subse 
quent  messages  of  the  President,  both  by  their  manner  as  well 
as  by  their  language — the  very  stupid  exhibition  of  ill-conceal 
ed  venom  by  Sir.  Bigler,  in  his  speech,  which  was  represented 
as  being  an  authorized  expression  of  the  views  of  the  adminis 
tration,  and  the  Quixotical  effort  of  Dr.  Fitch  to  read  Douglas 
and  all  who  thought  with  him  out  of  the  party — could  not  fail 
to  modify  very  greatly  the  personal  interest  previously  enter 
tained  by  the  Democracy  in  the  venerable  President.  The  de 
bates  in  Congress  and  the  proceedings  there  have  already  been 
spoken  of  in  these  pages,  and  it  will  only  be  necessary  to  refer 
to  them  now  as  explaining  proceedings  in  the  state.  On  a 
previous  page  will  be  found  some  notice  of  a  meeting  held  in 
Chicago  in  December  responsive  to  the  speech  of  Douglas  in 
the  Senate  on  the  9th  of  December.  The  names  mentioned  in 
those  proceedings  are  of  some  moment,  not  because  of  any  con 
sequence  attaching  personally  to  the  individuals,  but  as  illus 
trating  the  depths  to  which  rancorous  enmity  stooped  for  the 
selection  of  fitting  instruments  to  accomplish  its  ends. 

The  resolutions  of  that  meeting  were  reported  by  a  commit 
tee  consisting  of  the  following  persons :  Thomas  Hoyne,  ex- 
United  States  Attorney ;  Irani  Nye,  ex-United  States  Marshal; 
Isaac  Cook,  ex-United  States  Postmaster ;  Brock  M'Vickar, 
Surgeon  United  States  Marine  Hospital ;  William  Price,  post 
master  ;  Thomas  Dyer,  B.  F.  Bradley,  and  II.  D.  Colvin. 

The  chairman  of  the  meeting  was  Dr.  Daniel  Brainard,  ex- 
Surgeon  to  the  United  States  Marine  Hospital,  who  appointed 
this  committee,  and  who  gave  as  his  reason  for  placing  upon 
it  the  federal  officers  appointed  by  Mr.  Buchanan,  as  well  as 
those  who  had  been  removed,  that  it  was  right  that  the  admin 
istration  should  know  and  be  made  to  feel  that  no  Democrat 
in  Chicago,  in  office  or  out  of  it,  could  permit  so  gross  a  viola 
tion  of  the  principles  of  the  party  to  pass  without  expressing 
in  the  strongest  terms  a  reprobation  of  the  act.  The  meeting 
was  addressed  by  Dr.  Brainard  and  others  ;  their  speeches  were 
not  published,  because  the  friends  of  Mr.  Douglas  and  those 
who  really  desired  harmony  in  the  party  thought  that,  if  peace 
and  harmony  were  to  be  restored,  it  could  be  better  accom 
plished  by  suppressing  the  fierce  invectives  employed,  and 

P 


386  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

sweeping  denunciations,  not  only  of  Lecomptonism,  but  of  its 
supporters.  Had  these  speeches  been  preserved,  it  would  be 
refreshing  at  this  time  to  read  how  Mr.  Bigler  was  denounced 
as  an  overgrown  dunce,  and  Dr.  Fitch  as  a  bogus  senator 
whose  Pomeroy  Letter*  ought  to  have  consigned  him  to  a  po 
litical  oblivion  so  profound  that  not  even  a  Lecompton  Conven 
tion  could  resuscitate  his  memory. 

The  President  subsequently  appointed  Messrs.  Hoyne,  Nye, 
Brainard,  and  Cook  to  office,  they  having  become  opponents  of 
Douglas  and  supporters  of  Lecomptonism. 

In  February,  Cook,  one  of  the  above-named  committee,  pro 
ceeded  to  Washington,  and  w^as  nominated  to  the  Senate  as 
postmaster ;  he  was  then  a  defaulter  to  the  government  in  a 

*  As  Dr.  Fitch,  of  Indiana,  was  one  of  the  "  foreign"  disturbers  in  the  Illi 
nois  contest,  and  as  he  was  generally  styled  on  the  stump  "Pomeroy  Fitch," 
it  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  state  why  he  was  so  called.  At  one  time  he 
was  nominated  for  Congress  in  Indiana  by  the  Democracy,  whose  platform 
was  the  Nicholson  Letter.  Just  previous  to  the  election,  some  Abolitionists 
in  the  district,  not  satisfied  with  the  Whig  nominee,  addressed  a  letter  to 
Fitch,  propounding  questions  to  him,  to  which  Fitch  replied :  his  reply  se 
cured  the  Abolition  vote.  The  correspondence  was  secret,  and  not  known  to 
the  Democracy  until  too  late  to  take  action  upon  it.  The  correspondence  on 
the  part  of  the  Abolitionists  was  conducted  by  Mr.  Pomeroy.  We  give  the 
letters  without  comment,  except  to  say  that  Dr.  Fitch  very  honorably  kept  all 
his  pledges  to  Mr.  Pomeroy,  as  will  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  journals  of 
the  House  of  Representatives  at  the  time. 

"  Plymouth,  August  4, 1849. 

"  SIR, — As  there  are  a  few  who  think  you  have  not  been  quite  definite 
enough  on  some  of  the  questions  involved  in  the  present  canvass,  I  wish  you 
to  answer  the  following  questions,  to  wit : 

"  1.  Will  you,  if  elected,  vote  for  the  unconditional  repeal  of  slavery  in 
the  District  of  Columbia  ? 

"  2.  Will  you  vote  for  the  abolition  of  the  inter-state  slave-trade? 

"  3.  Will  you  vote  for  the  Wilmot  Proviso  being  extended  over  the  Terri 
tories  of  California  and  New  Mexico,  and  against  any  law  authorizing  slaves 
to  be  taken  there  as  property  ? 

"  Please  answer  the  above  questions  yes  or  no,  without  comment. 

"  GROVE  POMEROY." 
The  Answer, 

"With  pleasure  I  answer  '  YES'  to  the  above  questions. 

"  Entertaining  the  views  indicated  in  my  answer  above,  I  shall  not  only 
vote  '  yes'  on  these  measures,  but  if  no  older  or  abler  member,  whose  influence 
would  be  greater  than  mine,  introduce  them  into  Congress,  I  shall  do  it  my 
self,  if  I  have  the  honor  of  holding  a  seat  there. 

"G.N,  FITCH." 


THE  CAMPAIGN    OF    1858.  387 

very  large  sum,  but  nevertheless  his  confirmation  was  forced 
through  the  Senate — senators  of  honorable  name  and  distinc 
tion  uniting  in  the  action.  The  nomination  was  not  confirmed 
without  opposition,  and  that,  too,  of  the  most  determined  char 
acter  ;  the  result  was  that  Cook  was  not  confirmed  until  after 
the  first  of  March.  In  the  mean  time,  while  this  unheard-of 
proscription  was  going  on  at  Washington,  letters  from  cabinet 
officers  and  senators  were  flooding  the  mails,  all  tendering 
office,  profit,  and  honors  to  such  of  the  gallant  Democracy  of 
Illinois  as  would  abandon  the  principles  of  the  party  and  take 
up  the  banner  of  hostility  to  Douglas.  In  more  than  one  let 
ter,  and  by  more  than  one  of  these  men  who  thus  wrote  in  be 
half  of  the  President,  it  was  suggested  that  as  the  President 
was  too  old  to  attend  to  business  personally,  particularly  the 
distribution  of  patronage,  the  rewarding  of  friends  would  be 
the  especial  duty  of  the  gentlemen  to  whom  had  been  commit 
ted  that  business.  It  need  not  be  stated  that  these  letters 
were  from  presidential  aspirants,  some  in  Congress  and  some 
in  the  cabinet.  It  is  with  no  pleasure  that  these,  as  well  as 
other  equally  disgraceful  proceedings  on  the  part  of  "  distin 
guished"  men  in  the  councils  of  the  nation,  are  recorded  here. 
We  have  abstained  from  giving  names,  because  to  do  so  would 
be  to  single  out  individuals  and  hold  them  up  to  scorn  and 
contempt,  when,  in  truth  and  in  fact,  they  acted,  so  far  as  the 
attempt  to  corrupt  the  people,  as  the  authorized  exponents  of 
a  new  and  fatal  policy  whHi  had  been  adopted  for  the  purpose 
of  defeating  Stephen  A.  Douglas.  The  result  of  this  species 
of  attempted  corruption  was  soon  apparent.  A  prominent  in 
dividual  residing  in  Illinois,  who  perhaps  had  just  received  a 
letter  from  a  member  of  the  cabinet  suggesting  the  importance 
of  sustaining  the  administration  and  of  defeating  Douglas,  and 
intimating  that  the  administration  would  cheerfully  bestow  its 
best  offices  upon  those  who  would  aid  in  accomplishing  these 
ends,  while  the  writer,  who  already  had  the  confident  assur 
ances  of  a  majority  in  the  Charleston  Convention,  would  not 
fail  to  have  a  particular  regard  now  and  hereafter  for  the  per 
son  wTho  would  publicly  avow  a  hostility  to  Douglas,  would  be 
startled  by  receiving  next  day  a  letter  of  the  same  import  from 
a  senator,  and,  before  the  week  was  out,  would  possibly  have 
on  his  table  four  or  five  letters  from  as  many  "  distinguished 
Democrats,"  all  praying  the  defeat  of  Douglas,  and  each  con- 


388  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

eluding  with  the  suggestion  that  the  writer  had  already  re 
ceived  promises  sufficient  to  justify  him  in  expecting  the  nom 
ination  at  Charleston  !  The  effect  of  such  a  course  of  action 
on  the  part  of  those  who  had  taken  the  cause  of  the  adminis 
tration  in  hand  was,  as  might  be  expected,  entirely  fatal.  The 
work  was  overdone,  There  were  too  many  engaged  in  it. 
No  intelligent  man  who  received  such  letters  could  have  the 
slightest  respect  for  the  writers,  or  could  place  the  least  faith 
in  any  thing  they  said. 

Before  Cook's  confirmation,  the  Illinois  Democratic  State 
Central  Committee  issued  the  call  for  the  Democratic  State 
Convention  to  nominate  state  officers.  The  call  was  signed  by 
the  Hon.  ALEXANDER  STARNE,  of  Pike  County,  as  chairman, 
and  was  approved  by  all  the  members  of  the  committee.  It 
apportioned  the  number  of  votes  which  each  county  would 
be  entitled  to  in  convention,  the  number  being  based,  accord 
ing  to  custom,  upon  the  Democratic  vote  at  the  previous  pres 
idential-  election.  Counties  were  authorized,  of  course,  to  send 
as  many  delegates  as  they  chose,  but  the  number  of  votes 
which  each  county  would  be  entitled  to  was  fixed.  The  con 
vention  was  called  to  meet  at  Springfield,  in  the  State-house,  at 
ten  o'clock  A.M.,  April  21st.  It  has  been  stated  that  this  con 
vention  was  called  at  an  unusually  early  day ;  but,  by  reference 
to  a  table  published  elsewhere  in  this  volume,  it  will  be  seen 
that,  with  one  exception,  it  was  held  later  than  any  preceding 
Democratic  State  Convention  ever  held  in  Illinois.  The  excep 
tion  was  in  1856,  when  the  convention  was  held  on  the  first 
of  May.  The  day  after  copies  of  this  call  reached  Washing 
ton,  Cook's  nomination  was  confirmed  ;  longer  delay  was 
thought  dangerous  to  the  score  of  embryo  presidents  to  whom 
had  been  pledged  the  eleven  votes  of  Illinois  at  the  Charleston 
Convention.  He  hurried  home,  and  on  the  17th  of  March  as 
sumed  the  duties  of  postmaster.  He  immediately  turned  out 
a  number  of  competent,  worthy  men,  and  filled  their  places 
with  individuals  who  had  recommendations  signed  by  Fitch, 
Bright,  Cobb,  Slidell,  and  other  very  excellent  statesmen  of 
that  class.  The  best  comment  upon  these  appointments  is  the 
one  furnished  by  time ;  two  or  three  of  them  have  since  been 
sent  to  the  Penitentiary,  a  few  others  are  fugitives  from  justice, 
others  have  been  removed  by  order  of  the  Department,  and  oth 
ers  have  sought  safety  and  peace  by  voluntary  resignation. 


THE   CAMPAIGN   OF    1858.  389 

The  administration  had  now  a  representative  in  Illinois,  and 
if  there  was  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  any  one  to  reflect  dis 
respectfully  upon  the  Chicago  postmaster  or  the  policy  of  the 
administration,  it  might  be  said  with  great  truth  that  that  pol 
icy  and  its  representative  were  eminently  worthy  of  each  other. 
This  representative  of  the  administration,  being  himself  illit 
erate,  selected  from  a  brothel  in  Chicago  a  clerk,  through 
whose  penmanship  the  Chicago  postmaster  undertook,  in  the 
name  and  by  the  authority  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  and  of  several  members  of  his  cabinet,  to  corrupt  the 
Democracy  of  the  state.  As  the  personal  and  official  character 
of  the  postmaster  of  Chicago  is  of  itself  not  of  sufficient  im 
portance  to  require  more  than  a  passing  notice,  even  of  its  in 
famy,  yet  as,  with  a  full  knowledge  of  the  man,  the  administra 
tion  chose  to  place  its  character  and  fortunes  in  Illinois  in  his 
hands,  there  is  no  escape  from  the  disagreeable  task  of  record 
ing  a  few  particulars  of  the  joint  movements  of  principal  and 
agent  at  that  time.  At  Chatham,  in  Sangamon  County,  one 
1ST.  S.  Wright  had  been  postmaster,  and,  up  to  the  period  of 
Cook's  appointment  to  office,  had  been  an  ardent  supporter  of 
Douglas.  By  some  means — possibly  at  a  personal  interview — 
this  man,  Wright's,  ambition  or  cupidity  had  been  excited  by 
a  suggestion  that  he  ought  to  be  the  postmaster  at  Springfield. 
That  he  had  been  in  correspondence  with  Cook  upon  the  sub 
ject  is  evident,  for  upon  the  eighth  of  April  Cook  addressed 
him  a  letter,  warning  him  that  it  was  the  intention  of  the 
friends  of  Mr.  Buchanan  to  get  up  a  new  organization  in  the 
state ;  that  he,  Wright,  was  expected  to  secure  the  election  of 
anti-Douglas  delegates  to  the  state  convention,  but,  if  defeated 
in  that,  he  was,  by  all  means,  to  get  up  a  new  delegation.  The 
letter  closed  with  a  suggestion  that  the  business  of  appointing 
a  new  postmaster  at  Springfield  would  be  settled  at  the  meet 
ing  of  the  convention. 

It  will  be  seen  by  the  above  letter  that  the  administration, 
through  its  agent,  declared,  in  advance  of  the  state  convention, 
the  purpose  of  reorganizing  the  Democracy  of  Illinois,  and  in 
structed  the  federal  officer  in  that  quarter  that  if  he,  the  fed 
eral  officer,  was  beaten  in  the  choice  of  delegates  at  the  regu 
lar  Democratic  county  convention,  "by  all  means  to  get  up 
another  delegation."  This  letter,  owing  to  the  stupidity  of 
some  one  connected  with  the  Chicago  Post-office,  never  got 


390  LIFE  OF  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

into  the  mail,  but  reached  Mr.  Wright  through  the  columns 
of  the  newspapers,  into  which  it  found  its  way.  Mr.  Wright 
was  beaten  at  the  county  convention,  he  being  at  that  time 
the  solitary  Lecomptonite  in  the  county ;  but  he  "  got  up  a 
new  delegation"  on  paper  by  putting  down  the  names  of 
twelve  postmasters  who  would  not,  as  he  supposed,  dare  to 
say  nay  to  any  act  done  by  order  of  the  administration.  Sim 
ilar  letters  were  sent  all  over  the  state ;  and  the  efforts  of 
politicians  in  other  states  to  sow  discord  and  promote  differ 
ences  were  unremitting.  There  were  one  hundred  counties  in 
the  state;  in  ninety-eight  of  these  the  county  conventions 
passed  resolutions  sustaining  the  course  of  Douglas,  Harris, 
Marshall,  Morris,  Shaw,  and  Smith,  the  Democratic  delega 
tion  in  Congress.  In  one  county  resolutions  approving  of  the 
proposed  admission  of  Kansas  under  the  Lecompton  Constitu 
tion  were  passed.  In  the  other  county,  the  call  for  a  meeting 
of  the  county  convention  was  never  published,  but  a  few  days 
before  the  time  fixed  for  the  state  convention  the  chairman  of 
the  county  committee  held  a  private  meeting  in  his  own  office, 
and  appointed  himself  and  some  friends  as  delegates  to  the 
state  convention.  In  Lake  County  there  were  two  or  three 
candidates  for  the  Waukegan  Post-office :  these  candidates  had 
been  incited  "  to  defeat  Douglas"  as  the  surest  road  to  federal 
profit  and  honor.  When  the  county  convention  met  the  at 
tendance  was  full,  every  township  being  represented.  The 
candidates  for  the  post-office  were  on  hand  with  their  resolu 
tions  ;  but  the  incumbent  of  the  post-office  entered  the  con 
vention,  and,  in  person  or  by  another,  submitted  anti-Lecomp- 
ton  resolutions.  Such  doctrines,  coming  from  such  a  quarter, 
were  hailed  by  the  Democracy  with  delight ;  the  candidates 
for  the  post-office  were  voted  down  almost  unanimously,  and 
the  Waukegan  postmaster  had  every  thing  his  own  way.  In 
the  midst  of  the  enthusiasm  he  proposed  a  list  of  delegates, 
he  being  one ;  the  convention  adopted  the  list  without  ques 
tion,  and  adjourned  with  cheers  for  Douglas,  and  Harris,  and 
their  Illinois  associates  in  Congress.  The  Waukegan  post 
master  had  outwitted  his  rivals  and  cheated  the  convention. 
In  Cook  County  the  Democratic  county  convention  met,  and 
appointed  its  delegates,  at  the  head  of  whom  was  Dr.  Daniel 
Brainard ;  the  resolutions  of  the  convention  were  strong  and 
decided.  The  Chicago  postmaster  did  not  even  attempt  to 


THE    CAMPAIGN    OF    1858.  391 

compete  at  the  convention  for  the  delegation,  but  called  a  con 
vention  of  his  own,  and  appointed  "a  new  delegation." 

On  the  21st  of  April  Springfield  was  filled  with  delegates. 
Never  before  in  the  history  of  the  Democratic  party  had  there 
been  the  slightest  attempt  to  get  up  division ;  the  subject  of 
contested  seats  on  an  extensive  scale  was  a  new  one  in  an  Illi 
nois  state  convention.  For  more  than  twenty  years  these 
conventions  had  been  held  with  the  greatest  harmony.  Now, 
for  the  first  time,  there  was  an  appearance  of  a  storm.  The 
Cook  County  (Chicago)  delegation,  the  largest  in  the  state, 
having  thirty-six  votes,  were  called  together  early  in  the  morn 
ing  to  take  preliminary  steps  to  meet  the  contestants  before 
the  state  convention ;  Dr.  Brainard  was,  at  his  own  sugges 
tion,  appointed  to  argue  and  defend  the  right  of  the  "  regu 
lars"  to  seats  in  the  convention,  and  to  expose  the  utter  ille 
gality  and  absurdity  of  whatever  pretense  Cook  and  his  asso 
ciates  might  set  up  to  membership.  As  the  hour  approached 
for  the  meeting  of  the  convention,  the  representative  hall  be 
came  crowded.  Delegation  after  delegation  entered  and  took 
the  seats  assigned  them  by  the  state  committee ;  the  hands  on 
the  clock  pointed  to  five  minutes  before  ten,  and  still  not  one 
of  the  men  who  were  to  contest  the  seats  in  the  convention 
had  made  his  appearance.  As  the  clock  struck  ten,  Mr.  Starne, 
chairman  of  the  state  committee,  called  the  convention  to 
order,  and,  on  motion,  the  Hon.  JOHN  MOOKE  was  appointed 
temporary  chairman.  The  convention  was  further  temporarily 
organized  by  the  appointment  of  secretaries. 

The  Hon.  Samuel  Holmes,  of  Adams,  moved  the  appoint 
ment  of  a  committee  to  examine  the  credentials  of  delegates, 
and  to  report  to  the  convention  a  list  of  the  legally  elected 
delegates,  and  that  said  committee  consist  of  one  member  from 
each  congressional  district  and  two  from  the  state  at  large. 

Hon.  John  A.  M'Clernand  requested  the  gentleman  from 
Adams  to  modify  his  motion  so  as  that  it  would  be  in  the  fol 
lowing  form : 

Whereas,  it  is  understood  that  there  are  contesting  dele 
gates  from  one  or  more  counties  to  this  convention,  and  where 
as  practice  and  fairness  require  that  all  questions  affecting  the 
titles  of  claimants  to  seats  in  this  convention  should  be  settled 
before  the  convention  proceeds  to  effect  a  permanent  organi 
zation;  therefore, 


392  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

JResolved,  That  the  temporary  chairman  of  the  convention 
appoint  a  committee  of  eleven  on  the  credentials  of  members 
that  are  contested,  and  that  the  members  will  entertain  no 
proposition  and  do  no  business  until  the  report  of  said  com 
mittee  shall  have  been  acted  upon  by  the  convention ;  and  that, 
until  otherwise  ordered,  the  rules  of  the  last  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  of  this  state  be  the  rules  for  the  government  of  this 
convention. 

Mr.  Holmes  accepting  this  as  a  substitute  for  his  motion,  the 
preamble  and  resolution  were  adopted. 

The  president  appointed  as  the  committee  the  following  per 
sons  :  Hon.  Sam.  Holmes,  of  Adams ;  Hon.  James  Mitchell,  of 
Stephenson ;  Hon.  S.  S.  Hayes,  of  Cook ;  Hon.  John  A.  M'Cler- 
nand,  of  Sangamon ;  Hon.  W.  C.  Gondy,  of  Fulton ;  Hon.  U.  F. 
Linder,  of  Coles ;  Hon.  Zadoc  Casey,  of  Jefferson ;  Hon.  W.  J. 
Allen,  of  Williamson;  Hon.  W.H.Roosevelt,  of  Hancock;  Gov. 
J.  A.  Matteson,  of  Sangamon ;  and  F.  Goodspeed,  Esq.,  of  Will. 

The  secretary  called  the  list  of  counties  in  alphabetical  or 
der,  and  it  was  found  that  all  the  counties  in  the  state  except 
Lake  and  Union  were  represented,  and  represented  each  by 
one  delegation.  When  all  the  credentials  had  been  handed  in, 
and  the  Committee  on  Credentials  were  about  to  retire,  Mr. 
HOLMES  rose  and  said : 

"  The  Committee  on  Credentials  are  about  to  retire  to  the 
adjoining  room  to  examine  the  certificates  of  all  persons  claim 
ing  seats  in  the  Illinois  Democratic  State  Convention  of  1858, 
and  if  there  are  any  persons  claiming  seats  in  such  convention 
who  have  not  yet  presented  their  claims,  they  are  hereby  no 
tified  to  make  known  their  claims  without  delay,  or  hold  their 
peace  forever." 

Not  a  contestant  appeared  then  or  at  any  time  during  the 
session  of  the  convention.  In  fact,  so  bald  and  fabulous  was 
the  pretense  of  the  new  delegation,  "  got  up"  under  the  instruc 
tions  of  the  administration,  that  not  even  a  federal  office-hold 
er  could  command  sufficient  impudence  to  lay  claim  to  a  seat 
in  the  convention.  The  entire  number  of  persons  present  at 
Springfield  whose  names  were  used  by  the  administration  as 
delegates  to  a  "  National  Democratic  State  Convention"  was 
thirty-nine,  of  which  some  twenty-three  were  from  Chicago. 
These  met  in  the  Senate  Chamber,  and  never  claimed  seats  in 
the  state  convention,  but  declared  themselves  a  convention  un- 


THE   CAMPAIGN    OF    1858.  393 

der  the  new  organization  mentioned  in  Cook's  letter  to 
Wright.  This  meeting  of  the  "  new  delegations"  of  the  ad 
ministration,  or,  as  they  were  at  the  time  jocularly  styled,  the 
"  Thirty-nine  Articles"  of  Lecomptonism,  having  no  instruc 
tions  from  Washington  as  to  what  they  should  do,  except  the 
general  one  to  "  defeat  Douglas,"  passed  some  resolutions  de 
claring  that  the  state  convention  had  been  held  too  soon,  and 
adjourned  till  June,  in  order  "  to  give  the  Democracy  time  to 
turn  out." 

The  state  convention  was  in  many  respects  the  greatest  ever 
held  in  the  State  of  Illinois.  The  names  of  many  of  the  dele 
gates  had  long  previously  been  familiar  to  the  party  and  to 
the  country. 

The  Committee  on  Resolutions  consisted  of  the  following 
persons,  one  being  selected  from  each  congressional  district 
and  two  from  the  state  at  large :  Gov.  Joel  A.  Matteson ;  John 
D.  Crouch,  of  Jo  Daviess ;  Richard  T.  Merrick,  of  Cook ;  John 
Hise,  of  La  Salle;  John  M'Donald,  of  Peoria;  James  M.  Camp 
bell,  of  M'Donough ;  John  A.  M'Clernand,  of  Sangamon ;  Za- 
doc  Casey,  of  Jefferson ;  J.  S.  Post,  of  Macon ;  S.  A.  Buckmas- 
ter,  of  Madison ;  J.  S.  Robinson,  of  White. 

An  abler  committee  never  was  appointed  by  any  state  con 
vention.  The  members  were  all  men  of  standing,  and  most 
of  them  had  occupied  positions  under  the  state  and  federal 
governments.  Mr.  M'Clernand  had  represented  one  of  the  dis 
tricts  in  Congress  during  many  years,  and  until  he  declined  a 
re-election.  John  Hise  was  known  all  over  the  state  for  his 
long  and  able  services  in  the  Legislature.  Mr.  Casey  had  been 
lieutenant  governor  and  member  of  Congress  for  many  years. 
Messrs.  Crouch  and  M'Donald  were  experienced  editors ;  Buck- 
master,  Campbell,  and  Post  were  men  of  sterling  Democracy, 
and  known  to  the  central  portions  of  the  state  as  unfaltering 
supporters  of  Democratic  principles.  Mr.  Merrick  had  been 
an  Old  Line  Whig,  who,  in  the  disruption  of  that  party,  had 
united  in  1856  with  the  Democracy,  and  had  rendered  earnest 
and  vigorous  aid  in  the  election  of  Mr.  Buchanan. 

The  convention  nominated  W.  B.  Fondey  and  Hon.  A.  C. 
French,  the  former  for  state  treasurer,  and  the  latter  for  super 
intendent  of  public  instruction. 

The  committee  on  resolutions,  through  the  Hon.  JOHN  A. 
M'CLERNAND,  reported  the  following  resolutions,  which  were 

R2 


394  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

read,  and  the  question  having  been  taken  upon  each  resolution 
as  it  was  read,  and  then  upon  the  whole,  they  were  adopted 
without  one  dissenting  voice,  and  with  an  enthusiasm  that  was 
extraordinary  even  in  conventions  of  the  Democracy  of  Illinois. 

Resolved,  That  the  Democratic  party  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  through  their 
delegates  in  general  convention  assembled,  do  reassert  and  declare  the  prin 
ciples  avowed  by  them  as  when,  on  former  occasions,  they  have  presented 
their  candidates  for  popular  suffrage. 

Resolved,  That  they  are  unalterably  attached  to,  and  will  maintain  invio 
late,  the  principles  declared  by  the  National  Convention  at  Cincinnati  in 
June,  1856. 

Resolved,  That  they  avow,  with  renewed  energy,  their  devotion  to  the  fed 
eral  Union  of  the  United  States,  their  earnest  desire  to  avert  sectional  strife, 
their  determination  to  maintain  the  sovereignty  of  the  states,  and  to  protect 
every  state,  and  the  people  thereof,  in  all  their  constitutional  rights. 

Resolvedy  That  the  platform  of  principles  established  by  the  National 
Democratic  Convention  at  Cincinnati  is  the  only  authoritative  exposition  of 
Democratic  doctrine,  and  they  deny  the  right  of  any  power  on  earth,  except 
a  like  body,  to  change  or  interpolate  that  platform,  or  to  prescribe  new  or 
different  tests ;  that  they  will  neither  do  it  themselves,  nor  permit  it  to  be 
done  by  others,  but  will  recognize  all  men  as  Democrats  who  stand  by  and 
uphold  Democratic  principles. 

Resolved,  That  in  the  organization  of  states,  the  people  have  a  right  to  de 
cide  at  the  polls  upon  the  character  of  their  fundamental  law,  and  that  the 
experience  of  the  past  year  has  conclusively  demonstrated  the  wisdom  and 
propriety  of  the  principle  that  the  fundamental  law  under  which  a  Territory 
seeks  admission  into  the  Union  should  be  submitted  to  the  people  of  such 
Territory  for  their  ratification  or  rejection  at  a  fair  election,  to  be  held  for 
that  purpose ;  and  that  before  such  Territory  is  admitted  as  a  state,  such 
fundamental  law  should  receive  a  majority  of  the  legal  votes  cast  at  such  elec 
tion  ;  and  they  deny  the  right  and  condemn  the  attempt  of  any  convention 
called  for  the  purpose  of  framing  a  Constitution,  to  impose  the  instrument 
formed  by  them  upon  the  people  against  their  will. 

Resolved,  That  a  fair  application  of  these  principles  requires  that  the  Le- 
compton  Constitution  should  be  submitted  to  a  direct  vote  of  the  actual  in 
habitants  of  Kansas,  so  that  they  may  Arote  for  or  against  that  instrument  be 
fore  Kansas  shall  be  declared  one  of  the  states  of  this  Union ;  and  until  it 
shall  be  ratified  by  the  people  of  Kansas  at  a  fair  election  held  for  that  pur 
pose,  the  Illinois  Democracy  are  unalterably  opposed  to  the  admission  of 
Kansas  under  that  Constitution. 

Resolved,  That  we  heartily  approve  and  sustain  the  manly,  firm,  patriotic, 
and  Democratic  position  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  Isaac  N.  Morris,  Thomas 
L.  Harris.  Aaron  Shaw,  Robert  Smith,  and  Samuel  S.  Marshall,  the  Demo 
cratic  delegation  of  Illinois  in  Congress,  upon  the  question  of  the  admission 
of  Kansas  under  the  Lecompton  Constitution ;  and  that  by  their  firm  and 
uncompromising  devotion  to  the  Democratic  principles,  and  to  the  cause  of 
justice,  right,  and  the  people,  they  have  deserved  our  admiration,  increased, 
if  possible,  our  confidence  in  their  integrity  and  patriotism,  and  merited  our 
warm  approbation,  our  sincere  and  hearty  thanks,  and  shall  receive  our  earn 
est  support. 

Resolved,  That  in  all  things  wherein  the  national  administration  sustain 
and  carry  out  the  principles  of  the  Democratic  party  as  expressed  in  the  Cin 
cinnati  platform  and  affirmed  in  these  resolutions,  it  is  entitled  to  and  will 
receive  our  hearty  support. 


THE   CAMPAIGN    OF   1858.  396 

The  probability  of  the  reassembling  of  the  Danite  meeting 
was  a  subject  of  much  discussion.  Hundreds  of  Democrats 
who  had  agreed  with  Mr.  Buchanan  upon  the  subject  of  Le- 
compton  expressed  the  earnest  hope  that  the  ill-advised  move 
ment  to  divide  the  Democracy  would  receive  no  farther  coun 
tenance  from  the  President.  At  this  tune,  too,  the  House  of 
Representatives  adopted  the  English  amendment,  and  in  a  few 
days  thereafter  the  Senate  concurred.  Lecomptonism  was  at 
an  end.  The  question  of  the  admission  of  Kansas  with  the 
Lecompton  Constitution  was  referred  to  the  people  of  Kansas. 
The  struggle  was  over.  Both  sides  claimed  a  victory.  The 
advocates  of  the  admission  of  Kansas  with  the  Lecompton 
Constitution  had  all  voted  to  remand  the  issue  of  the  admis 
sion  of  the  state  with  that  Constitution  to  the  people  of  Kan 
sas  for  their  decision  at  the  polls.  It  is  true  they  did  not  sub 
mit  the  approval  or  disapproval  of  the  Constitution  directly  to 
a  vote  of  the  people,  but  they  did  submit  to  the  people  of 
Kansas  a  question,  in  voting  on  which  they  were  practically 
to  decide  whether  they  were  willing  to  be  admitted  as  a  state 
with  Lecompton,  or  remain  a  Territory  without  it. 

Many  of  the  opponents  of  the  admission  of  Kansas  with  the 
Lecompton  Constitution  voted  for  the  English  Bill,  because 
they  thought  it  accomplished  the  same  result  that  would  have 
been  accomplished  had  the  Constitution  been  submitted  di 
rectly  to  the  people  for  ratification  or  rejection.  Those  Anti- 
Lecompton  men  who  votfcd  against  the  English  Bill  claimed  a 
practical  victory,  though  they  could  not  consistently  vote  to 
admit  Kansas  with  that  Constitution  without  a  direct  vote  ap 
proving  it.  There  was  really,  then,  not  the  slightest  justifica 
tion  for  continuing  the  proscription  of  Democrats  for  having 
agreed  with  Judge  Douglas.  But  the  official  axe  was  not  idle. 
It  was  wielded  in  all  the  departments  of  the  government. 
Nor  was  it  confined  to  Illinois.  Postmasters  were  cut  down 
with  a  suddenness  that  was  intended  to  be  terrifying;  mail 
agents  were  dismissed  a  service  that  was  thereafter  to  be  de 
voted  to  the  especial  aid  of  Republicanism. 

The  secretary  of  the  treasury  struck  down  the  venerable  JA 
COB  FRY,  collector  of  Chicago,  who  for  forty  years  had  been 
an  active  Democrat,  and  had  never  sullied  his  own  name,  nor 
that  of  his  party,  by  any  act,  personal  or  official,  that  was  un 
worthy  a  gentleman.  The  same  secretary  continued  in  office 


396  LIFE   OP   STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

a  man  who  had  violated  every  law  recognized  by  the  govern 
ment  or  by  society  for  the  regulation  of  official  or  personal 
honesty. 

The  war  was  continued.  Francis  J.  Grund, "  the  basest  Hes 
sian  of  them  all,"  was  dispatched  to  Chicago.  He  was  the 
mouthpiece — and  a  fitting  one — through  which  despotism 
spoke  its  decrees  to  its  cringing  servitors  in  Illinois.  The 
Danite  Convention  was  officially  called  to  meet  again  at  Spring 
field.  Grund  was  a  delegate.  Dr.  Brainard,  having  in  the 
mean  time  made  arrangements  with  Grund  for  the  place  of 
surgeon  to  the  Marine  Hospital,  was  also  made  a  delegate.  O. 
C.  Skinner,  who  had  been  an  active  member  of  the  Democratic 
State  Convention,  and  who  had  moved  the  adoption  of  the  res 
olutions  without  the  change  of  a  word,  was  also  a  delegate. 
The  promises  of  office  had  been  cast  far  and  wide  over  the 
state,  and,  strange  to  relate,  almost  every  man  who  had  aban 
doned  General  Cass  and  supported  the  Buffalo  platform  in 
1848  now  rallied  at  the  Danite  call  to  defeat  Douglas  on  a  sus 
picion  of  Free-soilism !  The  convention  was  held.  The  pro 
ceedings  were  boisterous.  The  principal  operators  were  Grund, 
Lieb,  Carpenter,  and  Pine ;  the  resolutions,  which  were  of  the 
most  denunciatory  character,  were  reported  by  Carpenter. 
What  has  become  of  those  men  can  be  ascertained  upon  appli 
cation  to  Howell  Cobb  or  Attorney  General  Black.  With  the 
exception  of  Lieb,  who  is  now  a  Republican,  they  have  all  left 
the  State  of  Illinois.  Why  they  have  done  so  let  the  govern 
ment  that  clothed  them  with  official  patronage  and  power  an 
swer. 

The  effort  to  compel  the  attendance  of  postmasters  by  threats 
of  removal  failed.  It  is  true  that  the  names  of  many  postmas 
ters  were  published  as  delegates,  but  not  one  in  a  hundred 
paid  the  slightest  attention  to  the  matter.  The  "  delegates" 
consisted  principally  of  men  who  hoped  for  office.  Nine  of 
the  "  most  eminent"  men  in  the  convention  subsequently  were 
candidates  for  Congress  in  their  respective  districts,  and  the 
manner  in  which  their  eminent  abilities  and  their  perfidy  to  the 
Democratic  party  were  appreciated  can  be  seen  by  the  record 
of  the  votes  at  the  election.  At  this  time  more  than  one  mem 
ber  of  the  cabinet  was  at  w^ork  denouncing  Douglas  and  urging 
his  defeat.  The  issue  was  well  known.  It  was  Douglas  or 
Lincoln — a  Democrat  or  a  Republican.  Yet  the  defeat  of 


THE   CAMPAIGN   OF    1858.  397 

Douglas  was  demanded.  The  Danite  convention  adjourned 
on  the  9th  of  June,  having  nominated  John  Dougherty  and 
John  Reynolds  in  opposition  to  Fondey  and  French.  Let  it 
always  be  remembered  that  this  proceeding  took  place  at  the 
express  desire  of  the  administration,  and  after  the  passage  of 
the  English  Bill,  and  before  Mr.  Douglas's  return  to  Illinois 
from  Congress.  It  was  designed  deliberately  to  defeat  the 
Democratic  state  ticket,  and  to  defeat  all  the  Democratic  nom 
inees  for  Congress  and  for  the  Legislature. 

On  the  16th  of  June  the  Republican  state  convention  as 
sembled  at  Springfield,  and  put  in  nomination  Abraham  Lin 
coln  for  the  United  States  Senate,  and  on  the  same  day  Dr. 
Fitch  telegraphed  to  the  faithful  at  Chicago  that  the  removal 
of  the  venerable  General  Fry  had  been  consummated  by  the 
confirmation  of  Mr.  Strother  as  collector  of  Chicago. 

On  the  same  day  the  special  session  of  the  Senate  closed  its 
business  and  adjourned.  A  few  days  thereafter,  Senator  Doug 
las,  accompanied  by  his  family,  left  Washington  via  Philade) 
phia  and  New  York  for  Chicago. 

From  a  list  prepared  at  that  time  of  the  Democratic  papers 
published  in  Illinois,  it  was  found  that  there  were  sixty-nine 
supporting  the  regular  party  organization,  and  five  supporting 
the  Danite  ticket.  Of  these  five,  two  were  new  papers  com 
menced  after  the  entanglement.  One  other  was  published  by 
a  postmaster,  wTho,  as  late  as  January  preceding,  had  "  dared" 
the  administration  to  remove  him  for  denouncing  "  Lecompton 
as  a  fraud,"  or  for  supporting  Douglas ;  but,  having  become  a 
defaulter  as  postmaster,  was  then  confidently  expecting  a  high 
er  office,  which  he  ultimately  attained,  but  which  he  has  since 
vacated  for  cause.  Another  had  changed  its  politics  in  con 
sideration  of  a  post-office  advertisement  for  which  the  govern 
ment  paid  $417.  The  other,  edited  by  a  postmaster,  had  al 
ways  been  Lecompton.  Any  one  not  blinded  by  hatred  would 
have  been  able  to  judge  by  these  indications  the  tide  of  Dem 
ocratic  sentiment  in  Illinois.  In  vain  were  the  facts  presented 
to  the  administration.  They  would  listen  to  no  reason.  It 
seemed  as  if  the  whole  power  of  the  administration  had  been 
surrendered  to  the  control  of  those  presidential  aspirants,  who 
sought  in  the  defeat  of  Douglas  the  removal  of  what  they  re 
garded  the  only  person  standing  between  them  and  the  object 
of  their  ambition. 


398  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.  DOUGLAS. 

On  the  9th  of  July  Senator  Douglas  arrived  in  Chicago. 
The  circumstances  attending  his  arrival  were  of  such  a  charac 
ter  as  to  deserve  more  than  a  passing  notice.  It  was  an  era 
in  his  history.  It  was  the  third  occasion  of  his  return  to  the 
city  after  having  taken  part  in  exciting  national  controversies 
in  Congress.  In  1850,  after  the  passage  of  the  compromise 
measures,  he  was  met  by  a  violent  armed  mob ;  but,  by  the 
power  of  a  single  speech,  he  had  conquered  and  subdued  that 
mob.  In  1854,  after  the  passage  of  the  Nebraska  Bill,  he  was 
again  met  by  an  armed  mob,  who,  remembering  the  result  in 
1850  of  allowing  him  to  speak  to  the  people,  refused  to  let  him 
be  heard,  and,  after  several  hours'  struggle,  forced  him  to  leave 
the  meeting. 

And  now,  after  another  interval  of  four  years,  he  again  re 
turned  to  Chicago,  from  a  session  during  which  he  had  been 
the  object  of  an  assault  more  fearful  than  he  had  ever  before 
encountered.  The  events  of  that  night  were  so  remarkable 
that  an  account  of  them,  published  in  the  Chicago  Times  the 
morning  after,  will  not  prove  uninteresting : 

"  Yesterday  Senator  Douglas  was  received  in  Chicago,  and  the  occasion,  as 
well  as  the  manner  of  that  reception,  was  of  the  most  magnificent  character. 
Some  few  days  ago  it  was  heard  that  he  was  at  Cleveland,  and  forthwith  ar 
rangements  were  hastily  made  to  give  him  a  reception  worthy  of  his  great 
services.  With  that  view  it  was  determined  to  appoint  a  committee  to  meet 
him  at  Michigan  City,  and  escort  him  to  the  city.  The  committee  was  ap 
pointed. 

DEPARTURE  OF  THE  COMMITTEE. 

"As  per  announcement  in  the  programme  of  the  reception  of  Hon.  STE 
PHEN  A.  DOUGLAS,  published  by  authority  of  the  Committee  of  Arrange 
ments,  an  extra  train  of  cars  was  ready  at  1  o'clock  yesterday  to  convey  the 
Committee  of  Reception  to  Michigan  City,  distant  from  Chicago  sixty  miles, 
at  which  place  Senator  Douglas  was  to  take  the  Michigan  Central  road  on  the 
return  trip.  It  was  not  contemplated,  either  by  the  committee  or  any  one  else, 
that  many  persons,  besides  such  as  were  on  the  committee,  would  desire  to  go 
that  distance  in  the  middle  of  an  intensely  hot  day,  over  a  sandy  and  exposed 
road,  and  accordingly  no  effort  was  made  to  make  up  a  long  train.  But  full 
half  an  hour  before  the  time  of  starting,  hundreds  of  citizens,  many  of  whom 
came  from  remote  parts  of  the  state,  had  collected  at  the  depot.  We  noticed 
several  stanch  Democrats  who  had  come  up  from  the  extreme  southern  sec 
tion — from  Egypt — and  still  others  from  the  central  sections  ;  indeed,  there 
were  delegations  here  from  almost  every  county  in  Illinois.  While  the  crowd 
was  gathering,  fine  bands  of  music  were  employed,  which,  by  their  inspiriting 
strains,  helped  to  awaken  the  most  general  and  intense  enthusiasm.  In  the 
mean  time,  also,  a  great  number  of  large  national  flags  were  elevated  at 
conspicuous  points  near  the  depot  and  elsewhere,  and  banners  of  different 
shapes  and  colors,  besides  streamers,  pendents,  etc.,  were  disposed  in  all  di 
rections.  A  grand  sight  it  was !  All  present  partook  largely  of  the  spirit 
which  inspired  to  the  work  of  love  and  patriotism.  It  was  the  deliberate 


THE   CAMPAIGN    OP    1858.  399 

preparation  of  the  Democratic  citizens  of  Chicago  for  the  brilliant  reception 
of  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS — of  the  man,  the  noble,  devoted  man,  who  has  at 
this  time  more  of  the  confidence  and  affection  of  the  people  of  Illinois  and  of 
the  Union  than  any  other  man  who  can  be  named. 

"  It  was  now  1  o'clock.  The  train  was  to  start  at  that  hour,  and  all  things 
being  ready,  the  cars  moved  off  amid  shouts  from  the  outside,  and  answering 
shouts  and  music  from  within.  In  all,  the  company  numbered  four  hundred. 
A  splendid  banner,  that  of  the  Young  Men's  Democratic  Club,  was  carried 
upon  the  locomotive. 

"Was  there  ever  in  this  country,  whose  people  are  proverbially  parsi 
monious  of  public  attention,  a  greater  tribute  given  to  any  man?  Four 
hundred  strong,  leading  citizens  of  the  state  going  sixty  miles  in  a  melting 
day  to  meet  a  fellow-citizen !  And  it  should  be  observed  that  many  of  this 
great  company  came  from  places  distant,  some  fifty,  others  one  hundred,  and 
still  others  one  hundred  and  fifty,  and  even  two  hundred  miles.  They  came 
to  meet  Senator  Douglas,  to  take  his  true  hand  in  theirs,  and  to  tell  him 
that  they  and  the  masses  of  people  in  Illinois  confide  in  his  great  ability,  ad 
mire  the  brave  consistency  of  his  course,  and  will  sustain  him  at  the  ballot- 
boxes. 

' '  The  train  proceeded  to  Michigan  City,  where  it  was  met  by  a  host  of  gal 
lant  Indianians,  who  accompanied  the  judge  from  Laporte  to  Michigan  City. 
Some  malicious  person  having  secretly  spiked  the  only  gun  of  the  town,  the 
Democracy  obtained  a  large  anvil,  and  placing  it  in  the  middle  of  the  prin 
cipal  street,  made  the  welkin  echo  with  its  repeated  discharges. 

"The  delegation  from  Chicago,  including  Democrats  from  Logan,  Peoria, 
Tazewell,  La  Salle,  Marshall,  M 'Henry,  Knox,  Will,  Boone,  Kankakee, 
Champaign,  Stephenson,  Kane,  De  Kalb*  Du  Page,  and  other  counties  of  the 
state,  formed  into  line,  and,  preceded  by  a  band  of  music,  marched  to  the 
Tremont  House,  where  they  met  Senator  Douglas.  After  exchanging  per 
sonal  salutations  with  his  friends,  Judge  Douglas  returned,  in  a  few  happy 
remarks,  his  thanks  for  this  marked  expression  of  their  continued  friendship. 

THE   RETURN   TO   THE    CITY. 

"  At  a  few  minutes  after  five  o'clock  the  procession  was  formed  and  pro 
ceeded  to  the  depot,  Judge  Douglas  being  now  the  guest  of  the  committee. 
The  train  soon  started,  and  all  along  the  road — at  every  station,  at  almost 
every  farm-house  and  laborer's  cabin — in  every  corn-field,  and  at  every  point 
where  laborers  were  engaged — there  was  exhibited  by  cheers,  by  waving  of 
handkerchiefs  and  other  demonstrations,  that  cordial  '  welcome  home'  to  the 
great  representative  of  popular  rights. 

"At  the  outer  depot  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad  the  national  flag  had 
been  raised  by  the  operatives,  and  a  swivel  belched  forth  its  roaring  notes  of 
welcome.  The  hardy  hands  of  the  mechanics  resounded  with  applause,  and 
cheers  and  huzzas  continued  until  the  train  had  passed  on  to  the  city. 

"As  the  train  passed  along  from  Twelfth  Street  to  the  depot,  crowds  of 
ladies  were  assembled  on  the  door-steps  of  the  residences  on  Michigan  Ave 
nue,  waving  banners  and  handkerchiefs  ;  the  Lake  Park  was  crowded  by  per 
sons  hastily  proceeding  to  the  depot.  Long  before  the  train  could  enter  the 
station-house,  thousands  had  crossed  over  the  breakwater,  got  upon  the  track, 
and  climbed  into  the  cars,  and  when  the  latter  reached  the  depot  they  were 
literally  crammed  inside  and  covered  on  top  by  ardent  and  enthusiastic  friends 
and  supporters  of  the  illustrious  Illinoisian. 

"Capt.  Smith's  artillery  were,  in  the  mean  time,  firing  from  Dearborn 
Park  a  salute  of  150  guns  (guns  were  also  firing  in  the  West  and  North  Di 
visions),  the  booming  of  the  cannon  alone  rising  above  the  cheering  plaudits 
of  the  assembled  multitude. 


400  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

"The  hotels  and  principal  buildings  of  the  city  were  adorned  with  flags. 
The  Adams  House,  near  the  Central  depot,  was  most  handsomely  decorated. 
The  national  flag,  a  banner  bearing  the  motto  '  Douglas,  the  champion  of 
Popular  Sovereignty,'  as  well  as  numerous  flags  belonging  to  vessels  in  the 
harbor,  were  suspended  across  the  street,  presenting  a  grand  display.  The 
doors,  windows,  balconies,  and  roofs  of  the  Adams  House,  as  well  as  the 
private  residences  in  the  neighborhood,  and  the  large  stores  and  warehouses 
along  Lake  Street,  were  crowded  with  ladies  and  other  persons,  all  cheering 
and  welcoming  the  senator.  At  the  depot,  a  procession,  consisting  of  the 
'Montgomery  Guards,'  Capt.  Gleeson,  and  the  'Emmett  Guards,'  Lieut,  Stu 
art  commanding,  acting  as  a  military  escort,  was  then  formed.  Judge  Doug 
las  was  in  an  open  barouche  drawn  by  six  horses,  and  Avas  followed  by  the 
Committee  of  Arrangements  in  other  carriages.  The  procession  proceeded 
up  Lake  to  Wabash  Avenue,  down  Wabash  Avenue  to  Washington  Street, 
and  thence  by  Dearborn  Street  to  the  Tremont  House. 

"Throughout  the  whole  route  of  the  procession  the  senator  was  greeted 
from  house-top  and  window,  from  street,  from  awning-post  and  balcony,  by 
every  demonstration  of  grateful  welcome. 

THE    SCENE   AT   THE   TREMONT. 

"  As  early  as  half  past  six  o'clock  people  began  to  collect  around  the  Tre 
mont  House.  The  omnibuses  from  Union  Park,  and  from  the  southern  and 
northern  limits  of  the  city,  were  crowded  with  suburban  residents,  and  peo 
ple  came  on  foot  from  the  remotest  parts  of  the  city,  taking  up  eligible  stand 
ing-places  around  the  hotel.  At  about  half  past  seven,  the  booming  of  can 
non  on  the  Lake  shore  having  announced  the  arrival  of  the  train,  it  was  the 
signal  for  the  assembling  of  thousands  of  others,  who  rapidly  filled  up  every 
vacant  spot  in  Lake  Street,  from  State  to  Clark.  Dearborn  Street  was  also 
thronged  from  Water  to  Eandolph.  The  area  occupied  by  the  people,  pack 
ed  together  in  one  dense  mass,  was  considerably  over  fifty  thousand  square  feet. 
In  addition  to  this,  every  window  and  roof  within  hearing  distance  was  occu 
pied,  a  large  portion  of  the  occupants  being  ladies.  The  assemblage  of  peo 
ple  who  welcomed  in  vociferous  and  prolonged  shouts  of  joy  the  return  of 
Senator  Douglas  numbered  at  the  least  calculation  thirty  thousand. 

"  Chicago  has  never  before  witnessed  such  a  sight.  A  field  of  human 
forms  parted  with  difficulty  as  the  procession  passed  through,  and  closed  in 
stantly  behind  it,  with  the  surge  and  roar  of  the  waters  of  the  sea ;  an  ocean 
of  upturned  faces,  extending  beyond  the  farthest  limits  to  which  the  senator's 
powerful  voice  could  reach,  from  which  broke  one  spontaneous  burst  of  ap 
plause  as  he  appeared  upon  the  balcony  before  them.  Over  all,  the  light  of 
the  illumination,  and  the  glare  and  glitter  of  fireworks,  spread  an  appear 
ance  which  is  indescribable. 

"The  building  just  across  the  street  from  the  Tremont,  on  Lake,  occupied 
by  Jno.  Parmly,  hat  manufacturer,  and  others,  was  finely  illuminated,  and 
a  handsome  transparency  was  displayed,  bearing  the  words,  'Welcome  to 
STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS,  the  Defender  of  Popular  Sovereignty.' 

THE    SPEECHES. 

u  Charles  Walker,  Esq.,  then  appeared  on  the  Lake  Street  balcony,  and  in 
a  very  neat  address  welcomed  Senator  Douglas  to  his  constituents  from  a 
prolonged  but  glorious  struggle,  in  which  he  had  defended  and  maintained 
the  right. 

"Senator  Douglas  responded  in  a  speech  of  over  an  hour,  in  which  he 
reviewed  the  history  of  the  past  and  the  prospect  of  the  future." 

Before  giving  the  speech  of  Senator  Douglas  on  this  occa- 


THE   CAMPAIGN    OF    1858.  401 

sion,  it  should  be  stated  that,  on  the  evening  of  the  16th  of 
June,  when  nominated  as  a  candidate  for  the  United  States 
Senate,  the  Hon.  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN  had  addressed  the  Repub 
lican  State  Convention  in  a  carefully  prepared  speech.  As  Mr. 
Lincoln's  speech  constituted  one  of  the  leading  subjects  of  the 
great  contest  that  followed,  justice  to  that  gentleman,  and  jus 
tice  to  the  history  of  the  memorable  canvass,  suggest  that  it 
should  be  here  inserted. 

SPEECH    OF  ME.  LINCOLN. 

On  that  evening  Mr.  Lincoln  said : 

Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Convention, — If  we  could  first  know 
where  we  are  and  whither  we  are  tending,  we  could  better  judge  what  to  do 
and  how  to  do  it.  We  are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy  was  in 
itiated  with  the  avowed  object  and  confident  promise  of  putting  an  end  to 
slavery  agitation.  Under  the  operation  of  that  policy,  that  agitation  has  not 
only  not  ceased,  but  has  constantly  augmented.  In  my  opinion,  it  will  not 
cease  until  a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached  and  passed.  |*'  A  house  divided 
against  itself  can  not  stand."  I  believe  this  government  can  not  endure  per 
manently  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dis 
solved — I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall — but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be 
divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other.  |  Either  the  opponents 
of  slavery  will  arrest  the  farther  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public 
mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or 
its  advocates  will  push  it  forward  till  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the 
states,  old  as  well  as  new — North  as  well  as  South. 

Have  we  no  tendency  to  the  latter  condition? 

Lei  any  one  who  doubts  carefully  contemplate  that  now  almost  complete 
legal  combination — piece  of  machinery  so  to  speak — compounded  of  the  Ne 
braska  doctrine  and  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  Let  him  consider  not  only 
what  work  the  machinery  is  adapted  to  do,  and  how  well  adapted,  but  also 
let  him  study  the  history  of  its  construction,  and  trace  if  he  can,  or  rather 
fail  if  he  can,  to  trace  the  evidence  of  design  and  concert  of  action  among  its 
chief  architects  from  the  beginning. 

The  New-year  of  1854  found  slavery  excluded  from  more  than  half  the 
states  by  state  Constitutions,  and  from  most  of  the  national  territory  by  Con 
gressional  prohibition.  Four  days  later  commenced  the  struggle  which  end 
ed  in  repealing  that  Congressional  prohibition.  This  opened  all  the  nation 
al  territory  to  slavery,  and  was  the  first  point  gained. 

But  so  far  Congress  only  had  acted  ;  and  an  endorsement  by  the  people, 
real  or  apparent,  was  indispensable,  to  save  the  point  already  gained,  and 
give  chance  for  more. 

This  necessity  had  not  been  overlooked,  but  had  been  provided  for,  as  well 
as  might  be,  in  the  notable  argument  of  "squatter  sovereignty,"  otherwise 
called  "sacred  right  of  self-government,"  which  latter  phrase,  though  ex 
pressive  of  the  only  rightful  basis  of  any  government,  was  so  perverted  in 
this  attempted  use  of  it  as  to  amount  to  just  this :  that  if  any  one  man  choose 
to  enslave  another,  no  third  man  shall  be  allowed  to  object.  That  argument 
was  incorporated  into  the  Nebraska  Bill  itself  in  the  language  which  follows : 
"  It  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of 'this  act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into 
any  Territory  or  state,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people 
thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their 


402  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.  DOUGLAS. 

own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States."  Then 
opened  the  roar  of  loose  declamation  in  favor  of  "squatter  sovereignty,"  and 
"sacred  right  of  self-government."  "But,"  said  opposition  members,  "let 
us  amend  the  bill  so  as  to  expressly  declare  that  the  people  of  the  Territory 
may  exclude  slavery."  "Not  we,"  said  the  friends  of  the  measure;  and 
down  they  voted  the  amendment. 

While  the  Nebraska  Bill  was  passing  through  Congress,  a  law  case  involv 
ing  the  question  of  a  negro's  freedom,  by  reason  of  his  owner  having  volun 
tarily  taken  him  first  into  a  free  state  and  then  into  a  Territory  covered  by 
the  Congressional  prohibition,  and  held  him  as  a  slave  for  a  long  time  in 
each,  was  passing  through  the  U.  S.  Circuit  Court  for  the  District  of  Mis 
souri,  and  both  Nebraska  Bill  and  lawsuit  were  brought  to  a  decision  in  the 
same  month  of  May,  1854.  The  negro's  name  was  "Dred  Scott,"  which 
name  now  designates  the  decision  finally  made  in  the  case.  Before  the 
then  next  presidential  election,  the  law  case  came  to,  and  was  argued  in,  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  ;  but  the  decision  of  it  was  deferred  un 
til  after  the  election.  Still,  before  the  election,  Senator  Trumbull,  on  the 
floor  of  the  Senate,  requests  the  leading  advocate  of  the  Nebraska  Bill  to 
state  his  opinion  whether  the  people  of  a  Territory  can  constitutionally  ex 
clude  slavery  from  their  limits;  and  the  latter  answers,  "That  is  a  question 
for  the  Supreme  Court." 

The  election  came.  Mr.  Buchanan  was  elected,  and  the  endorsement, 
such  as  it  was,  secured.  That  was  the  second  point  gained.  The  endorse 
ment,  however,  fell  short  of  a  clear  popular  majority  by  nearly  four  hundred 
thousand  votes,  and  so,  perhaps,  was  not  overwhelmingly  reliable  and  satis 
factory.  The  outgoing  President,  in  his  last  annual  message,  as  impressively 
as  possible  echoed  back  upon  the  people  the  weight  and  authority  of  the  en 
dorsement.  The  Supreme  Court  met  again ;  did  not  announce  "their  decis 
ion,  but  ordered  a  re-argument.  The  presidential  inauguration  came,  and 
still  no  decision  of  the  court ;  but  the  incoming  President,  in  his  inaugural 
address,  fervently  exhorted  the  people  to  abide  by  the  forthcoming  decision, 
whatever  it  might  be.  Then,  in  a  few  days,  came  the  decision.  The  reputed 
author  of  the  Nebraska  Bill  finds  an  early  occasion  to  make  a  speech  at  this 
capital  endorsing  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  and  vehemently  denouncing  all 
opposition  to  it.  The  new  President,  too,  seizes  the  early  occasion  of  the 
Silliman  Letter  to  indorse  and  strongly  construe  that  decision,  and  to  ex 
press  his  astonishment  that  any  different  view  had  ever  been  entertained ! 

At  length  a  squabble  springs  up  between  the  President  and  the  author  of 
the  Nebraska  Bill  on  the  mere  question  offact  whether  the  Lecompton  Con 
stitution  was  or  was  not,  in  any  just  sense,  made  by  the  people  of  Kansas ; 
and  in  that  quarrel  the  latter  declares  that  all  he  wants  is  a  fair  vote  for  the 
people,  and  that  he  cares  not  whether  slavery  be  voted  down  or  voted  up.  I 
do  not  understand  his  declaration  that  he  cares  not  whether  slavery  be  voted 
down  or  voted  up  to  be  intended  by  him  other  than  as  an  apt  definition  of 
the  policy  he  would  impress  upon  the  public  mind — the  principle  for  which 
he  declares  he  has  suffered  so  much,  and  is  ready  to  suffer  to  the  end.  And 
well  may  he  cling  to  that  principle.  If  he  has  any  parental  feeling,  well  may 
he  cling  to  it.  That  principle  is  the  only  shred  left  of  his  original  Nebraska 
doctrine.  Under  the  dred  Scott  decision,  "squatter  sovereignty"  squatted 
out  of  existence,  tumbled  down  like  temporary  scaffolding — like  the  mould  at 
the  foundry,  served  through  one  blast  and  fell  back  into  loose  sand — helped 
to  carry  an  election,  and  then  was  kicked  to  the  winds.  His  late  joint  strug 
gle  with  the  Republicans  against  the  Lecompton  Constitution  involves  noth 
ing  of  the  original  Nebraska  doctrine.  The  struggle  was  made  on  a  point, 
the  right  of  a  people  to  make  their  own  Constitution,  upon  which  he  and  the 
Republicans  have  never  differed. 


THE   CAMPAIGN    OF   1858.  403 

The  several  points  of  the  Drcd  Scott  decision,  in  connection  with  Senator 
Douglas's  "care  not"  policy,  constitute  the  piece  of  machinery  in  its  present 
state  of  advancement.  The  working  points  of  that  machinery  are, 

First.  That  no  negro  slave,  imported  as  such  from  Africa,  and  no  descend 
ant  of  such  slave,  can  ever  be  a  citizen  of  any  state,  in  the  sense  of  that  term 
as  used  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  This  point  is  made  in  or 
der  to  deprive  the  negro,  in  every  possible  event,  of  the  benefit  of  that  provi 
sion  of  the  United  States  Constitution  which  declares  that  "  the  citizens  of 
each  state  shall  be  entitled  to  all  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the 
several  states." 

Secondly.  That,  "subject  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, "  neither 
Congress  nor  a  Territorial  Legislature  can  exclude  slavery  from  any  United 
States  Territory.  This  point  is  made  in  order  that  individual  men  may  fill 
up  the  Territories  with  slaves,  without  danger  of  losing  them  as  property,  and 
thus  to  enhance  the  chances  of  permanency  to  the  institution  through  all  the 
future. 

Thirdly.  That  whether  the  holding  a  negro  in  actual  slavery  in  a  free  state 
makes  him  free  as  against  the  holder,  the  United  States  Courts  will  not  de 
cide,  but  will  leave  to  be  decided  by  the  courts  of  any  slave  state  the  negro 
may  be  forced  into  by  the  master.  This  point  is  made,  not  to  be  pressed  im 
mediately  ;  but  if  acquiesced  in  for  a  while,  and  apparently  endorsed  by  the 
people  at  an  election,  then  to  sustain  the  logical  conclusion  that  what  Dred 
Scott's  master  might  do  lawfully  with  Dred  Scott  in  the  free  state  of  Illinois, 
every  other  master  may  lawfully  do  with  any  other  one,  or  one  thousand 
slaves,  in  Illinois,  or  in  any  other  free  state. 

Auxiliary  to  all  thispand  working  hand  in  hand  with  it,  the  Nebraska  doc 
trine,  or  what  is  left  of  it,  is  to  educate  and  mould  public  opinion,  at  least 
Northern  public  opinion,  not  to  care  whether  slavery  is  voted  down  or  voted 
up.  This  shows  exactly  where  we  now  are,  and  partially,  also,  whither  we 
are  tending. 

It  will  throw  additional  light  on  the  latter  to  go  back,  and  run  the  mind 
over  the  string  of  historical  facts  already  stated.  Several  things  will  now 
appear  less  dark  and  mysterious  than  they  did  when  they  were  transpiring. 
The  people  were  to  be  left  "perfectly  free,"  "subject  only  to  the  Constitu 
tion."  What  the  Constitution  had  to  do  with  it  outsiders  could  not  then  see. 
Plainly  enough  now,  it  was  an  exactly  fitted  niche  for  the  Drcd  Scott  decis 
ion  to  afterward  come  in,  and  declare  the  perfect  freedom  of  the  people  to  be 
just  no  freedom  at  all.  Why  was  the  amendment  expressly  declaring  the 
right  of  the  people  voted  down  ?  Plainly  enough  now :  the  adoption  of  it 
would  have  spoiled  the  niche  for  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  Why  was  the 
court  decision  held  up  ?  Why  even  a  senator's  individual  opinion  withheld 
till  after  the  presidential  election  ?  Plainly  enough  now :  the  speaking  out 
then  would  have  damaged  the  perfectly  free  argument  upon  which  the  elec 
tion  was  to  be  carried.  Why  the  outgoing  President's  felicitation  on  the 
endorsement  ?  WThy  the  delay  of  a  re-argument  ?  Why  the  incoming  Pres 
ident's  advance  exhortation  in  favor  of  the  decision  ?  These  things  look  like 
the  cautious  patting  and  petting  of  a  spirited  horse  preparatory  to  mounting 
him,  when  it  is  dreaded  that  he  may  give  the  rider  a  fall.  And  why  the 
hasty  after-endorsement  of  the  decision  by  the  President  and  others  ? 

We  can  not  absolutely  know  that  all  these  exact  adaptations  are  the  result 
of  preconcert.  But  when  we  see  a  lot  of  framed  timbers,  different  portions 
of  which  we  know  have  been  gotten  out  at  different  times  and  places  and  by 
different  workmen — Stephen,  Franklin,  Roger,  and  James,  for  instance — and 
when  we  see  these  timbers  joined  together,  and  see  they  exactly  make  the 
frame  of  a  house  or  a  mill,  all  the  tenons  and  mortices  exactly  fitting,  and 
all  the  lengths  and  proportions  of  the  different  pieces  exactly  adapted  to  their 


404  LIFE   OP   STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

respective  places,  and  not  a  piece  too  many  or  too  few — not  omitting  even 
scaffolding — or,  if  a  single  piece  be  lacking,  we  see  the  place  in  the  frame  ex 
actly  fitted  and  prepared  yet  to  bring  such  piece  in — in  such  a  case,  we  find 
it  impossible  not  to  believe  that  Stephen,  and  Franklin,  and  Roger,  and  James 
all  understood  one  another  from  the  beginning,  and  all  worked  upon  a  com 
mon  plan  or  draft  drawn  up  before  the  first  blow  was  struck. 

It  should  not  be  overlooked  that  by  the  Nebraska  Bill  the  people  of  a  state 
as  well  as  Territory  Avere  to  be  left  "perfectly  free,"  "subject  only  to  the 
Constitution."  Why  mention  a  state?  They  were  legislating  for  Territo 
ries,  and  not  for  or  about  states.  Certainly  the  people  of  a  state  are  and 
ought  to  be  subject  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  but  why  is  men 
tion  of  this  lugged  into  this  merely  Territorial  law  ?  Why  are  the  people  of 
a  Territory  and  the  people  of  a  state  therein  lumped  together,  and  their  re 
lation  to  the  Constitution  therein  treated  as  being  precisely  the  same  ?  While 
the  opinion  of  the  court,  by  Chief  Justice  Taney,  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  and 
the  separate  opinions  of  all  the  concurring  judges,  expressly  declare  that  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  neither  permits  Congress  nor  a  Territorial 
Legislature  to  exclude  slavery  from  any  United  States  Territory,  they  all 
omit  to  declare  whether  or  not  the  same  Constitution  permits  a  state,  or  the 
people  of  a  state,  to  exclude  it.  Possibly  this  is  a  mere  omission ;  but  who 
can  be  quite  sure,  if  M'Lean  or  Curtis  had  sought  to  get  into  the  opinion  a 
declaration  of  unlimited  power  in  the  people  of  a  state  to  exclude  slavery 
from  their  limits,  just  as  Chase  and  Mace  sought  to  get  such  declaration  in 
behalf  of  the  people  of  a  Territory  into  the  Nebraska  Bill — I  ask,  who  can 
be  quite  sure  that  it  would  not  have  been  voted  down  in  the  one  case  as  it 
had  been  in  the  other  ?  The  nearest  approach  to  the  point  of  declaring  the 
power  of  a  state  over  slavery  is  made  by  Judge  Nelson.  He  approaches  it 
more  than  once,  using  the  precise  idea,  and  almost  the  language  too,  of  the 
Nebraska  Act.  On  one  occasion  his  exact  language  is,  "except  in  cases 
where  the  power  is  restrained  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  the 
law  of  the  state  is  supreme  over  the  subject  of  slavery  within  its  jurisdiction." 
In  what  cases  the  power  of  the  states  is  so  restrained  by  the  United  States 
Constitution  is  left  an  open  question,  precisely  as  the  same  question  as  to  the 
restraint  on  the  power  of  the  Territories  was  left  open  in  the  Nebraska  Act. 
Put  this  and  that  together,  and  we  have  another  nice  little  niche,  which  we 
may,  ere  long,  see  filled  with  another  Supreme  Court  decision,  declaring  that 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  does  not  permit  a  state  to  exclude  slav 
ery  from  its  limits.  And  this  may  especially  be  expected  if  the  doctrine  of 
' '  care  not  whether  slavery  be  voted  down  or  voted  up"  shall  gain  upon  the 
public  mind  sufficiently  to  give  promise  that  such  a  decision  can  be  main 
tained  when  made. 

Such  a  decision  is  all  that  slavery  now  lacks  of  being  alike  lawful  in  all 
the  states.  Welcome  or  unwelcome,  such  decision  is  probably  coming,  and 
will  soon  be  upon  us,  unless  the  power  of  the  present  political  dynasty  shall 
be  met  and  overthrown.  We  shall  lie  down  pleasantly  dreaming  that  the 
people  of  Missouri  are  on  the  verge  of  making  their  state  free,  and  we  shall 
awake  to  the  reality  instead  that  the  Supreme  Court  has  made  Illinois  a  slave 
state.  To  meet  and  overthrow  the  power  of  that  dynasty  is  the  work  now 
before  all  those  who  would  prevent  that  consummation.  That  is  what  we 
have  to  do.  How  can  we  best  do  it  ? 

There  are  those  who  denounce  us  openly  to  their  own  friends,  and  yet  whis 
per  us  softly  that  Senator  Douglas  is  the  aptest  instrument  there  is  with  which 
to  effect  that  object.  They  wish  us  to  infer  all  from  the  fact  that  he  now  has 
a  little  quarrel  with  the  present  head  of  the  dynasty,  and  that  he  has  regu 
larly  voted  with  us  on  a  single  point,  upon  which  he  and  we  have  never  dif 
fered.  They  remind  us  that  he  is  a  very  great  man,  and  that  the  largest  of 


THE   CAMPAIGN    OF    1858.  405 

us  are  very  small  ones.  Let  this  be  granted.  But  "a  living  dog  is  better 
than  a  dead  lion."  Judge  Douglas,  if  not  a  dead  lion  for  this  work,  is  at 
least  a  caged  and  toothless  one.  How  can  he  oppose  the  advances  of  slavery? 
He  don't  care  any  thing  about  it.  His  avowed  mission  is  impressing  the 
"public  heart"  to  care  nothing  about  it.  A  leading  Douglas  Democratic  news 
paper  thinks  Douglas's  superior  talent  will  be  needed  to  resist  the  revival  of 
the  African  slave-trade.  Does  Douglas  believe  an  effort  to  revive  that  trade 
is  approaching  ?  He  has  not  said  so.  Does  he  really  think  so  ?  But  if  it  is, 
how  can  he  resist  it  ?  For  years  he  has  labored  to  prove  it  a  sacred  right  of 
white  men  to  take  negro  slaves  into  the  new  Territories.  Can  he  possibly 
show  that  it  is  less  a  sacred  right  to  buy  them  where  they  can  be  bought 
cheapest  ?  And  unquestionably  they  can  be  bought  cheaper  in  Africa  than 
in  Virginia.  He  has  done  all  in  his  power  to  reduce  the  whole  question  of 
slavery  to  one  of  a  mere  right  of  property  ;  and,  as  such,  how  can  he  oppose 
the  foreign  slave-trade — how  can  he  refuse  that  trade  in  that  "property" 
shall  be  "perfectly  free,"  unless  he  does  it  as  a  protection  to  the  home  pro 
duction  ?  And  as  the  home  producers  will  probably  not  ask  the  protection, 
he  will  be  wholly  without  a  ground  of  opposition. 

Senator  Douglas  holds,  we  know,  that  a  man  may  rightfully  be  wiser  to 
day  than  he  was  yesterday — that  he  may  rightfully  change  when  he  finds 
himself  wrong.  But  can  we,  for  that  reason,  run  ahead,  and  infer  that  he 
will  make  any  particular  change  of  which  he  himself  has  given  no  intimation  ? 
Can  we  safely  base  our  action  upon  any  such  vague  inference  ?  Now,  as 
ever,  I  wish  not  to  misrepresent  Judge  Douglas's  position,  question  his  mo 
tives,  or  do  aught  that  can  be  personally  offensive  to  him.  Whenever,  if 
ever,  he  and  we  can  come  together  on  principle  so  that  our  cause  may  have 
assistance  from  his  great  ability,  I  hope  to  have  interposed  no  adventitious 
obstacle.  But  clearly  he  is  not  now  with  us — he  does  not  pretend  to  be — he 
does  not  promise  ever  to  be. 

Our  cause,  then,  must  be  intrusted  to,  and  conducted  by  its  own  undoubted 
friends — those  whose  hands  are  free,  whose  hearts  are  in  the  work — who  do 
care  for  the  result.  Two  years  ago  the  Republicans  of  the  nation  mustered 
over  thirteen  hundred  thousand  strong.  We  did  this  under  the  single  im 
pulse  of  resistance  to  a  common  danger,  with  every  external  circumstance 
against  us.  Of  strange,  discordant,  and  even  hostile  elements,  we  gathered 
from  the  four  winds,  and  formed  and  fought  the  battles  through,  under  the 
constant  hot  fire  of  a  disciplined,  proud,  and  pampered  enemy.  Did  we 
brave  all  then  to  falter  now — now,  when  that  same  enemy  is  wavering,  dis 
severed,  and  belligerent  ?  The  result  is  not  doubtful.  We  shall  not  fail — 
if  we  stand  firm,  we  shall  not  fail.  Wise  counsels  may  accelerate,  or  mistake 
delay  it,  but  sooner  or  later  the  victory  is  sure  to  come. 

In  this  speech  was  proclaimed  the  doctrine  of  an  "  irrepres 
sible  conflict."  Mr.  Lincoln,  it  is  true,  did  not  declare  it  in 
that  phrase,  but  he  declared  it  in  terms  not  less  strong  when 
he  declared, 

"  In  my  opinion,  it  (slavery  agitation)  will  not  cease  until  a 
crisis  shall  have  been  reached  and  passed.  I  believe  this  gov 
ernment  can  not  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free. 
*  *  *  It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  the  other." 

Mr.  Seward,  in  his  Rochester  speech,  expressed  the  same 
idea  in  more  ornate  terms,  but  not  any  more  clearly  or  forcibly 
than  it  was  expressed  by  Mr.  Lincoln.  And  in  a  struggle  be- 


406  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS. 

tween  the  originator  and  promulgates  of  that  doctrine  and 
the  author  of  the  Nebraska  Bill,  a  Democratic  federal  admin 
istration  took  sides  openly,  through  its  federal  officers  and 
through  its  official  organ  at  Washington,  against  the  Democ 
racy  of  Illinois. 

In  response  to  the  cordial  welcome  given  him  by  the  mul 
titude,  Mr,  Douglas  said: 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Fellow-citizens : 

I  can  find  no  language  which  can  adequately  express  my  profound  grati 
tude  for  the  magnificent  welcome  which  you  have  extended  to  me  on  this  oc 
casion.  This  vast  sea  of  human  faces  indicates  how  deep  an  interest  is  felt 
by  our  people  in  the  great  questions  which  agitate  the  public  mind  and  which 
underlie  the  foundations  of  our  free  institutions.  A  reception  like  this,  so 
great  in  numbers  that  no  human  voice  can  be  heard  to  its  countless  thousands 
— so  enthusiastic  that  no  one  individual  can  be  the  object  of  such  enthusiasm, 
clearly  shows  that  there  is  some  great  principle  which  sinks  deep  in  the  heart 
of  the  masses,  and  involves  the  rights  and  the  liberties  of  a  whole  people,  that 
has  brought  you  together  with  a  unanimity  and  a  cordiality  never  before  ex 
celled,  if,  indeed,  equaled  on  any  occasion.  (Cheers.)  I  have  not  the  vanity 
to  believe  that  it  is  any  personal  compliment  to  me. 

(Voices,  "It  isl"     "You  have  deserved  it;"  and  great  applause.) 

It  is  an  expression  of  your  devotion  to  that  great  principle  of  self-govern 
ment  (cries  of  "Hear,"  " hear")  to  which  my  life  for  many  years  past  has 
been,  and  in  the  whole  future  will  be  devoted.  (Immense  cheering.)  If 
there  is  any  one  principle  dearer  and  more  sacred  than  all  others  in  free  gov 
ernments,  it  is  that  which  asserts  the  exclusive  right  of  a  free  people  to  form 
and  adopt  their  own  fundamental  law,  and  to  manage  and  regulate  their  own 
internal  affairs  and  domestic  institutions.  (Applause.) 

When  I  found  an  effort  being  made  during  the  recent  session  of  Congress 
to  force  a  Constitution  upon  the  people  of  Kansas  against  their  will,  and  to 
force  that  state  into  the  Union  with  a  Constitution  which  her  people  had  re 
jected  by  more  than  10,000,  I  felt  bound,  as  a  man  of  honor  and  a  representa 
tive  of  Illinois — bound  by  every  consideration  of  duty,  of  fidelity,  and  of 
patriotism,  to  resist  to  the  utmost  of  my  power  the  consummation  of  that 
fraud.  (Cheers.)  "With  others  I  did  resist  it,  and  resisted  it  successfully  until 
the  attempt  was  abandoned.  (Great  applause.)  We  forced  them  to  refer  that 
Constitution  back  to  the  people  of  Kansas,  to  be  accepted  or  rejected  as  they 
shall  decide  at  an  election  which  is  fixed  for  the  first  Monday  of  August  next. 
It  is  true  that  the  mode  of  reference  and  the  form  of  the  submission  was  not 
such  as  I  could  sanction  with  my  vote,  for  the  reason  that  it  discriminated 
between  free  states  and  slave  states ;  providing  that  if  Kansas  consented  to 
come  in  under  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  it  should  be  received  with  a  popu 
lation  of  35,000;  but  that  if  she  demanded  another  Constitution,  more  con 
sistent  with  the  sentiments  of  her  people  and  their  feelings,  that  it  should  not 
be  received  into  the  Union  until  she  had  93,420  inhabitants.  (Cries  of 
"Hear,"  "hear,"  and  cheers.)  I  did  not  consider  that  mode  of  submission 
fair,  for  the  reason  that  any  election  is  a  mockery  which  is  not  free — that  any 
election  is  a  fraud  upon  the  rights  of  the  people  which  holds  out  inducements 
for  affirmative  votes,  and  threatens  penalties  for  negative  votes.  (Hear,  hear.) 
But,  while  I  was  not  satisfied  with  the  mode  of  submission — while  I  resisted 
it  to  the  last,  demanding  a  fair,  a  just,  a  free  mode  of  submission,  still,  when 
the  law  passed  placing  it  within  the  power  of  the  people  of  Kansas  at  that 


THE   CAMPAIGN   OF    1858.  407 

election  to  reject  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  and  then  make  another  in  har 
mony  with  their  principles  and  their  opinions  (Bravo,  and  applause),  I  did  not 
believe  that  either  the  penalties  on  the  one  hand,  or  the  inducements  on  the 
other,  would  force  that  people  to  accept  a  Constitution  to  which  they  are  irre 
concilably  opposed.  (Cries  of  "  Glorious,"  and  renewed  applause.)  All  I  can 
say  is,  that  if  their  votes  can  be  controlled  by  such  considerations,  all  the 
sympathy  which  has  been  expended  upon  them  has  been  misplaced,  and  all 
the  efforts  that  have  been  made  in  defense  of  their  rights  to  self-government 
have  been  made  in  an  unworthy  cause.  (Cheers.) 

Hence,  my  friends,  I  regard  the  Lecompton  battle  as  having  been  fought 
and  the  victory  won,  because  the  arrogant  demand  for  the  admission  of  Kan 
sas  under  the  Lecompton  Constitution  unconditionally,  whether  her  people 
wanted  it  or  not,  has  been  abandoned,  and  the  principle  which  recognizes  the 
right  of  the  people  to  decide  for  themselves  has  been  substituted  in  its  place. 
(Immense  applause.) 

Fellow-citizens. — While  I  devoted  my  best  energies — all  my  energies,  men 
tal  and  physical — to  the  vindication  of  that  great  principle,  and  while  the  re 
sult  has  been  such  as  will  enable  the  people  of  Kansas  to  come  into  the  Union 
with  such  a  Constitution  as  they  desire,  yet  the  credit  of  this  great  moral  vic 
tory  is  to  be  divided  among  a  large  number  of  men  of  various  and  different 
political  creeds.  (Prolonged  applause.)  I  was  rejoiced  when  I  found  in  this 
great  contest  the  Republican  party  coming  up  manfully  and  sustaining  the 
principle  that  the  people  of  each  territory,  when  coming  into  the  Union,  have 
the  right  to  decide  for  themselves  (Cheers)  whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not 
exist  within  their  limits.  (A  voice,  "  Hope  they  will  stick  to  it,"  and  great 
cheering.)  I  have  seen  the  time  when  that  principle  was  controverted.  I 
have  seen  the  time  when  ah1  parties  did  not  recognize  the  right  of  a  people  to 
have  slavery  or  freedom,  to  tolerate  or  prohibit  slavery,  as  they  deemed  best, 
but  claimed  that  power  for  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  regardless  of 
the  wishes  of  the  people  to  be  affected  by  it ;  and  when  I  found  upon  the 
Crittenden-Montgomery  Bill  the  Republicans  and  the  Americans  of  the  North, 
and  I  may  say,  too,  some  glorious  Americans  and  Old  Line  "Whigs  from  the 
South  (Cheers),  like  Crittenden  and  his  patriotic  associates,  joined  with  a  por 
tion  of  the  Democracy  to  carry  out  and  vindicate  the  right  of  the  people  to 
decide  whether  slavery  should  or  should  not  exist  within  the  limits  of  Kan 
sas,  I  was  rejoiced  within  my  secret  soul,  for  I  saw  an  indication  that  tho 
American  people,  when  they  come  to  understand  the  principle,  would  give  it 
their  cordial  support.  (Cheers.) 

The  Crittenden-Montgomery  Bill  was  as  fair  and  as  perfect  an  exposition 
of  the  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty  as  could  be  carried  out  by  any  bill  that 
man  ever  devised.  It  proposed  to  refer  the  Lecompton  Constitution  back  to 
the  people  of  Kansas,  and  give  them  the  right  to  accept  or  reject  it  as  they 
pleased  at  a  fair  election,  held  in  pursuance  of  law,  and  in  the  event  of  their 
rejecting  it  and  forming  another  in  its  stead,  to  permit  them  to  come  into  the 
Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  states.  It  was  fair  and  just  in 
all  of  its  provisions.  I  gave  it  my  cordial  support,  and  was  rejoiced  when  I 
found  that  it  passed  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  at  one  time  I  enter 
tained  high  hope  that  it  would  pass  the  Senate.  (Applause.) 

I  regard  the  great  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  as  having  been  vindicated 
and  made  triumphant  in  this  land  as  a  permanent  rule  of  public  policy  in  the 
organization  of  territories  and  the  admission  of  new  states.  (Cheers.)  Illi 
nois  took  her  position  upon  this  principle  many  years  ago.  You  all  recollect 
that  in  1850,  after  the  passage  of  the  compromise  measures  of  that  year,  when 
I  returned  to  my  home  there  was  great  dissatisfaction  expressed  at  my  course 
in  supporting  those  measures.  (Shame.)  I  appeared  before  the  people  of 
Chicago  at  a  mass  meeting,  and  vindicated  each  and  every  one  of  those  meaa 


408  LIFE   OF  STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS. 

ures  j  and  by  reference  to  my  speech  on  that  occasion,  which  was  printed  and 
circulated  broadcast  throughout  the  state  at  the  time,  you  will  find  that  I 
then  and  there  said  that  those  measures  were  all  founded  upon  the  great  prin 
ciple  that  every  people  ought  to  possess  the  right  to  form  and  regulate  their 
own  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  and  that  that  right  being  pos 
sessed  by  the  people  of  the  states,  I  saw  no  reason  why  the  same  principle 
should  not  be  extended  to  all  of  the  territories  of  the  United  States.  A  gen 
eral  election  was  held  in  this  state  a  few  months  afterward  for  members  of 
the  Legislature,  pending  which  all  these  questions  were  thoroughly  canvassed 
and  discussed,  and  the  nominees  of  the  different  parties  instructed  in  regard 
to  the  wishes  of  their  constituents  upon  them.  When  that  election  was  over, 
and  the  Legislature  assembled,  they  proceeded  to  consider  the  merits  of  those 
compromise  measures  and  the  principles  upon  which  they  were  predicated. 
And  what  was  the  result  of  their  action  ?  They  passed  resolutions,  first  re 
pealing  the  Wilmot  Proviso  instructions,  and  in  lieu  thereof  adopted  another 
resolution,  in  which  they  declared  the  great  principle  which  asserts  the  right 
of  the  people  to  make  their  own  form  of  government  and  establish  their  own 
institutions.  That  resolution  is  as  follows : 

"  Resolved,  That  our  liberty  and  independence  are  based  upon  the  right  of 
the  people  to  form  for  themselves  such  a  government  as  they  may  choose ; 
that  this  great  principle,  the  birthright  of  freemen,  the  gift  of  Heaven,  se 
cured  to  us  by  the  blood  of  our  ancestors,  ought  to  be  extended  to  future 
generations,  and  no  limitation  ought  to  be  applied  to  this  power  in  the  organ 
ization  of  any  territory  of  the  United  States  of  either  a  territorial  govern 
ment  or  state  Constitution,  provided  the  government  so  established  shall  be 
Republican  and  in  conformity  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

That  resolution,  declaring  the  great  principle  of  self-government  as  appli 
cable  to  the  territories  and  new  states,  passed  the  House  of  Representatives 
of  this  state  by  a  vote  of  sixty-one  in  the  affirmative  to  only  four  in  the  nega 
tive.  Thus  you  find  that  an  expression  of  public  opinion,  enlightened,  edu 
cated,  intelligent  public  opinion  on  this  question  by  the  representatives  of 
Illinois,  in  1851,  approaches  nearer  to  unanimity  than  has  ever  been  ob 
tained  on  any  controverted  question.  That  resolution  was  entered  on  the 
Journal  of  the  Legislature  of  Illinois,  and  it  has  remained  there  from  that 
day  to  this,  a  standing  instruction  to  her  senators  and  a  request  to  her  repre 
sentatives  in  Congress  to  carry  out  that  principle  in  all  future  cases.  Illinois, 
therefore,  stands  pre-eminent  as  the  state  which  stepped  forward  early  and 
established  a  platform  applicable  to  this  slavery  question,  concurred  in  alike 
by  "Whigs  and  Democrats,  in  which  it  was  declared  to  be  the  wish  of  our 
people  that  thereafter  the  people  of  the  territories  should  be  left  perfectly  free 
to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  and  that  no 
limitation  should  be  placed  upon  that  right  in  any  form.  (Tremendous  ap 
plause.)  Hence,  what  was  my  duty  in  1854,  when  it  became  necessary  to 
bring  forward  a  bill  for  the  organization  of  the  Territories  of  Kansas  and 
Nebraska?  Was  it  not  my  duty,  in  obedience  to  the  Illinois  platform,  to 
your  standing  instructions  to  your  senators,  adopted  with  almost  entire  unani 
mity,  to  incorporate  in  that  bill  the  great  principle  of  self-government,  de 
claring  that  it  was  "  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  act  not  to  legislate 
slavery  into  any  state  or  territory,  or  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave 
the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institu 
tions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States?" 
(Cries  of  "  Yes,  yes,"  and  cheers.)  I  did  incorporate  that  principle  in  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  Bill,  and  perhaps  I  did  as  much  as  any  living  man  in  the 
enactment  of  that  bill — (great  applause) — thus  establishing  the  doctrine  in 
the  public  policy  of  the  country.  (Cries  of  "  G-ood,"  and  renewed  applause.) 
I  then  defended  that  principle  against  assaults  from  one  section  of  the  Union. 


THE   CAMPAIGN   OF    1858.  409 

During  this  last  winter  it  became  my  duty  to  vindicate  it  against  assaults 
from  the  other  section  of  the  Union.  (Cheers.)  I  vindicated  it  boldly  and 
fearlessly,  as  the  people  of  Chicago  can  bear  witness,  when  it  was  assailed 
by  Free-soilers — ((i  Yes,  yes,"  and  cheers) — and  during  this  winter  I  vindi 
cated  and  defended  it  as  boldly  and  as  fearlessly  when  it  was  attempted  to  be 
violated  by  the  almost  united  South.  (Immense  applause.)  I  pledged  my 
self  to  you  on  every  stump  in  Illinois  in  1854, 1  pledged  myself  to  the  people 
of  other  states,  North  and  South — wherever  I  spoke — and  in  the  United  States 
Senate  and  elsewhere,  in  every  form  in  which  I  could  reach  the  public  mind 
or  the  public  ear,  I  gave  the  pledge  that  I,  so  far  as  the  power  should  be  in 
my  hands,  would  vindicate  the  principle  of  the  right  of  the  people  to  form 
their  own  institutions,  to  establish  free  states  or  slave  states  as  they  chose, 
and  that  that  principle  should  never  be  violated  either  by  fraud,  by  violence, 
by  circumvention,  or  by  any  other  means,  if  it  was  in  my  power  to  prevent  it. 
(Applause.)  I  now  submit  to  you,  my  fellow  citizens,  whether  I  have  not 
redeemed  that  pledge  in  good  faith!  (Cries  of  "Yes,  yes,"  and  three 
tremendous  cheers.)  Yes,  my  friends,  I  have  redeemed  it  in  good  faith,  and 
it  is  a  matter  of  heartfelt  gratification  to  me  to  see  these  assembled  thou 
sands  here  to-night  bearing  their  testimony  to  the  fidelity  with  which  I  have 
advocated  that  principle  and  redeemed  my  pledges  hi  connection  with  it 
(Cheers.) 

I  will  be  entirely  frank  with  you.  My  object  was  to  secure  the  right  of 
the  people  of  each  state  and  of  each  territory,  North  or  South,  to  decide  the 
question  for  themselves,  to  have  slavery  or  not,  just  as  they  chose ;  and  my 
opposition  to  the  Lecompton  Constitution  was  not  predicated  upon  the 
ground  that  it  was  a  Pro-slavery  Constitution — (cheers)— nor  would  my 
action  have  been  different  had  it  been  a  Free-soil  Constitution.  My  speech 
against  the  Lecompton  fraud  was  made  on  the  9th  of  December,  while  the 
vote  on  the  slavery  clause  in  that  Constitution  was  not  taken  until  the 
21st  of  the  same  month,  nearly  two  weeks  after.  I  made  my  speech 
against  that  Lecompton  monstrosity  solely  on  the  ground  that  it  was  a  vio 
lation  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  free  government ;  on  the  ground  that 
,  it  was  not  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas ;  that  it  did  not  embody 
their  will;  that  they  were  averse  to  it;  and  hence  I  denied  the  right  of 
Congress  to  force  it  upon  them,  either  as  a  free  state  or  a  slave  state. 
(Bravo.)  I  deny  the  right  of  Congress  to  force  a  slaveholding  state  upon  an 
unwilling  people.  (Cheers.)  I  deny  their  right  to  force  a  free  state  upon  an 
unwilling  people.  (Cheers.)  I  deny  their  right  to  force  a  good  thing  upon  a 
people  who  are  unwilling  to  receive  it.  (Cries  of  "  Good,  good,"  and  cheers.) 
The  great  principle  is  the  right  of  every  community  to  judge  and  decide  foi 
itself  whether  a  thing  is  right  or  wrong,  whether  it  would  be  good  or  evil 
for  them  to  adopt  it ;  and  the  right  of  free  action,  the  right  of  free  thought, 
the  right  of  free  judgment  upon  the  question  is  dearer  to  every  true  American 
than  any  other  under  a  free  government.  My  objection  to  the  Lecompton 
contrivance  was  that  it  undertook  to  put  a  Constitution  on  the  people  of  Kan 
sas  against  their  will,  in  opposition  to  their  wishes,  and  thus  violated  the 
great  principle  upon  which  all  our  institutions  rest.  It  is  no  answer  to  this 
argument  to  say  that  slavery  is  an  evil,  and  hence  should  not  be  tolerated. 
You  must  allow  the  people  to  decide  for  themselves  whether  it  is  a  good  or 
an  evil.  You  allow  them  to  decide  for  themselves  whether  they  desire  a 
Maine  liquor  law  or  not;  you  allow  them  to  decide  for  themselves  what 
kind  of  common  schools  they  will  have ;  what  system  of  banking  they  will 
adopt,  or  whether  they  will  adopt  any  at  all ;  you  allow  them  to  decide  for 
themselves  the  relations  between  husband  and  wife,  parent  and  child,  and 
guardian  and  ward ;  in  fact,  you  allow  them  to  decide  for  themselves  all 
other  questions,  and  why  not  upon  this  question?  (Cheers.)  Whenever 

S 


410  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

you  put  a  limitation  upon  the  right  of  any  people  to  decide  what  laws  they 
want,  you  have  destroyed  the  fundamental  principle  of  self-government. 
(Cheers.) 

In  connection  with  this  subject,  perhaps,  it  will  not  be  improper  for  me 
on  this  occasion  to  allude  to  the  position  of  those  who  have  chosen  to  arraign 
my  conduct  on  this  same  subject.  I  have  observed  from  the  public  prints 
that  but  a  few  days  ago  the  Republican  party  of  the  State  of  Illinois  assem 
bled  in  convention  at  Springfield,  and  not  only  laid  down  their  platform,  but 
nominated  a  candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate  as  my  successor. 
(Hisses.)  I  take  great  pleasure  in  saying  that  I  have  known  personally  and 
intimately,  for  about  a  quarter  of  a  century,  the  worthy  gentleman  who  has 
been  nominated  for  my  place — (a  voice,  "  He  will  never  get  it,"  and  cheers) — 
and  I  will  say  that  I  regard  him  as  a  kind,  amiable,  and  intelligent  gentle 
man,  a  good  citizen,  and  an  honorable  opponent ;  and  whatever  issue  I  may 
have  with  him  will  be  of  principle,  and  not  involving  personalities.  (Cheers.) 
Mr.  Lincoln  made  a  speech  before  that  Republican  convention  which  unani 
mously  nominated  him  for  the  Senate — a  speech  evidently  well  prepared  and 
carefully  written — in  which  he  states  the  basis  upon  which  he  proposes  to 
carry  on  the  campaign  during  this  summer.  In  it  he  lays  down  two  distinct 
propositions,  which  I  shall  notice,  and  upon  which  I  shall  take  a  direct  and 
bold  issue  with  him.  (Cries  of  "  G-ood,  good,"  and  great  applause.) 

His  first  and  main  proposition  I  will  give  in  his  own  language,  Scripture 
quotation  and  all.  (Laughter.)  I  give  his  exact  language:  '"A  house  di 
vided  against  itself  can  not  stand.'  I  believe  this  government  can  not  en 
dure,  permanently,  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be 
dissolved;  I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall ;  but  I  do  expect  it  to  cease  to 
be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other." 

In  other  words,  Mr.  Lincoln  asserts  as  a  fundamental  principle  of  this 
government  that  there  must  be  uniformity  in  the  local  laws  and  domestic  in 
stitutions  of  each  and  all  the  states  of  the  Union,  and  he  therefore  invites  all 
the  non-slaveholding  states  to  band  together,  organize  as  one  body,  and  make 
war  upon  slavery  in  Kentucky,  upon  slavery  in  Virginia,  upon  slavery  in  the 
Carolinas,  upon  slavery  in  all  of  the  slaveholding  states  in  this  Union,  and 
to  persevere  in  that  war  until  it  shall  be  exterminated.  He  then  notifies  the 
slaveholding  states  to  stand  together  as  a  unit  and  make  an  aggressive  war 
upon  the  free  states  of  this  Union  with  a  view  of  establishing  slavery  in 
them  all ;  of  forcing  it  upon  Illinois,  of  forcing  it  upon  New  York,  upon  New 
England,  and  upon  every  other  free  state,  and  that  they  shall  keep  up  the 
warfare  until  it  has  been  formally  established  in  them  all.  In  other  words, 
Mr.  Lincoln  advocates  boldly  and  clearly  a  war  of  sections,  a  war  of  the 
North  against  the  South,  of  the  free  states  against  the  slave  states — a  war 
of  extermination — to  be  continued  relentlessly  until  the  one  or  the  other 
shall  be  subdued,  and  all  the  states  shall  either  become  free  or  become 
slave. 

Now,  my  friends,  I  must  say  to  you  frankly,  that  I  take  bold,  unqualified 
issue  with  him  upon  that  principle.  I  assert  that  it  is  neither  desirable  nor 
possible  that  there  should  be  uniformity  in  the  local  institutions  and  domes 
tic  regulations  of  the  different  states  of  this  Union.  The  framers  of  our 
government  never  contemplated  uniformity  in  its  internal  concerns.  The 
fathers  of  the  Revolution,  and  the  sages  who  made  the  Constitution,  well 
understood  that  the  laws  and  domestic  institutions  which  would  suit  tho 
granite  hills  of  New  Hampshire  would  be  totally  unfit  for  the  rice  planta 
tions  of  South  Carolina  (Cheers) ;  they  well  understood  that  the  laws  which 
would  suit  the  agricultural  districts  of  Pennsylvania  and  New  York  would 
bo  totally  unfit  for  the  large  mining  regions  of  the  Pacific,  or  the  lumber  re 
gions  of  Maine.  (Bravo).  They  well  understood  that  the  great  varieties  of 


THE   CAMPAIGN    OF    1858.  411 

soil,  of  production,  and  of  interests,  in  a  republic  as  large  as  this,  required 
different  local  and  domestic  regulations  in  each  locality,  adapted  to  the  wants 
and  interests  of  each  separate  state  (cries  of  "Bravo, "and  "Good"),  and 
for  that  reason  it  was  provided  in  the  federal  Constitution  that  the  thirteen 
original  states  should  remain  sovereign  and  supreme  within  their  own  limits 
in  regard  to  all  that  was  local,  and  internal,  and  domestic,  while  the  federal 
government  should  have  certain  specified  powers  which  were  general  and 
national,  and  could  be  exercised  only  by  the  federal  authority.  (Cheers). 

The  framers  of  the  Constitution  well  understood  that  each  locality,  having 
separate  and  distinct  interests,  required  separate  and  distinct  laws,  domestic 
institutions,  and  police  regulations  adapted  to  its  own  wants  and  its  own 
condition ;  and  they  acted  on  the  presumption,  also,  that  these  laws  and  in 
stitutions  would  be  as  diversified  and  as  dissimilar  as  the  states  would  be 
numerous,  and  that  no  two  would  be  precisely  alike,  because  the  interests 
of  no  two  would  be  precisely  the  same.  Hence,  I  assert,  that  the  great 
fundamental  principle  which  underlies  our  complex  system  of  state  and  fed 
eral  governments  contemplated  diversity  and  dissimilarity  in  the  local  insti 
tutions  and  domestic  affairs  of  each  and  every  state  then  in  the  Union,  or 
thereafter  to  be  admitted  into  the  confederacy.  I  therefore  conceive  that 
my  friend,  Mr.  Lincoln,  has  totally  misapprehended  the  great  principles  upon 
which  our  government  rests.  Uniformity  in  local  and  domestic  affairs  would 
be  destructive  of  state  rights,  of  state  sovereignty,  of  personal  liberty,  and 
personal  freedom.  Uniformity  is  the  parent  of  despotism  the  world  over, 
not  only  in  politics,  but  in  religion.  Wherever  the  doctrine  of  uniformity  is 
proclaimed,  that  all  the  states  must  be  free  or  all  slave,  that  all  labor  must 
be  white  or  all  black,  that  all  the  citizens  of  the  different  states  must  have 
the  same  privileges  or  be  governed  by  the  same  regulations,  you  have  de 
stroyed  the  greatest  safeguard  which  our  institutions  have  thrown  around 
the  rights  of  the  citizen.  ("Bravo,"  and  great  applause). 

How  could  this  uniformity  be  accomplished  if  it  was  desirable  and  pos 
sible  ?  There  is  but  one  mode  in  which  it  could  be  obtained,  and  that  must 
be  by  abolishing  the  state  Legislatures,  blotting  out  state  sovereignty,  merg 
ing  the  rights  and  sovereignty  of  the  states  in  one  consolidated  empire,  and 
vesting  Congress  with  the  plenary  power  to  make  all  the  police  regulations, 
domestic  and  local  laws,  uniform  throughout  the  limits  of  the  republic. 
"When  you  shall  have  done  this  y^u  will  have  uniformity.  Then  the  states 
will  all  be  slave  or  all  be  free ;  then  negroes  will  vote  everywhere  or  no 
where ;  then  you  will  have  a  Maine  liquor  law  in  every  state  or  none ; 
then  you  will  have  uniformity  in  all  things  local  and  domestic  by  the  au 
thority  of  the  federal  government.  But,  when  you  attain  that  uniformity,  you 
will  have  converted  these  thirty-two  sovereign,  independent  states  into  one 
consolidated  empire,  with  the  uniformity  of  despotism  reigning  triumphant 
throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land.  (Great  applause). 

From  this  view  of  the  case,  my  friends,  I  am  driven  irresistibly  to  the 
conclusion  that  diversity,  dissimilarity,  variety  in  all  our  local  and  domestic 
institutions,  is  the  great  safeguard  of  our  liberties ;  and  that  the  framers  of 
our  institutions  were  wise,  sagacious,  and  patriotic  when  they  made  this 
government  a  confederation  of  several  states  with  a  Legislature  for  each, 
and  conferred  upon  each  Legislature  the  power  to  make  all  local  and  do 
mestic  institutions  to  suit  the  people  it  represented,  without  interference  from 
any  other  state  or  from  the  general  Congress  of  the  Union.  If  we  expect  to 
maintain  our  liberties,  we  must  preserve  the  rights  and  sovereignty  of  the 
states ;  we  must  maintain  and  carry  out  that  great  principle  of  self-govern 
ment  incorporated  in  the  compromise  measures  of  1850  ;  endorsed  by  the 
Illinois  Legislature  of  1851 ;  emphatically  embodied  and  carried  out  in  the 


412  LIFE  OF  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

Kansas-Nebraska  Bill,  and  vindicated  this  year  by  the  refusal  to  bring  Kansas 
into  the  Union  with  a  Constitution  distasteful  to  her  people.  (Cheers). 

The  other  proposition  discussed  by  Mr.  Lincoln  in  his  speech  consists  in  a 
crusade  against  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  on  account  of  the 
Dred  Scott  decision.  On  this  question,  also,  I  desire  to  say  to  you,  unequiv 
ocally,  that  I  take  direct  and  distinct  issue  with  him.  I  have  no  warfare  to 
make  on  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  (Bravo),  either  on  account 
of  that  or  any  other  decision  which  they  have  pronounced  from  that  bench. 
("  Good,  good,"  and  enthusiastic  applause).  The  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  has  provided  that  the  powers  of  government  (and  the  Constitution  of 
each  state  has  the  same  provision)  shall  be  divided  into  three  departments, 
executive,  legislative,  and  judicial.  The  right  and  the  province  of  expound 
ing  the  Constitution,  and  constructing  the  law,  is  vested  in  the  judiciary  es 
tablished  by  the  Constitution.  As  a  lawyer,  I  feel  at  liberty  to  appear 
before  the  court  and  controvert  any  principle  of  law  while  the  question  is 
pending  before  the  tribunal ;  but  when  the  decision  is  made,  my  private 
opinion,  your  opinion,  all  other  opinions,  must  yield  to  the  majesty  of  that 
authoritative  adjudication.  (Cries  of  "  It  is  right,"  "Good,  good,"  and  cheers). 

I  wish  you  to  bear  in  mind  that  this  involves  a  great  principle,  upon 
which  our  rights,  and  our  liberty,  and  our  property  all  depend.  What  se 
curity  have  you  for  your  property,  for  your  reputation,  and  for  your  personal 
rights,  if  the  courts  are  not  upheld,  and  their  decisions  respected  when  once 
firmly  rendered  by  the  highest  tribunal  known  to  the  Constitution?  (Cheers.) 
I  do  not  choose,  therefore,  to  go  into  any  argument  with  Mr.  Lincoln  in  re 
viewing  the  various  decisions  which  the  Supreme  Court  has  made,  either 
upon  the  Dred  Scott  case,  or  any  other.  I  have  no  idea  of  appealing  from 
the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  upon  a  constitutional  question  to  the  de 
cision  of  a  tumultuous  town  meeting.  (Cheers.)  I  am  aware  that  once  an 
eminent  lawyer  of  this  city,  now  no  more,  said  that  the  State  of  Illinois  had 
the  most  perfect  judicial  system  in  the  world,  subject  to  but  one  exception, 
which  could  be  cured  by  a  slight  amendment,  and  that  amendment  was  to  so 
change  the  law  as  to  allow  an  appeal  from  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Illinois,  on  all  constitutional  questions,  to  two  justices  of  the  peace. 
(Great  laughter  and  applause.)  My  friend  Mr.  Lincoln,  who  sits  behind  me, 
reminds  me  that  that  proposition  was  made  when  I  was  a  judge  of  the  Su 
preme  Court.  Be  that  as  it  may,  I  do  not  think  that  fact  adds  any  greater 
weight  or  authority  to  the  suggestion.  (Renewed  laughter  and  applause.) 
It  matters  not  with  me  who  was  on  the  bench,  whether  Mr.  Lincoln  or  my 
self,  whether  a  Lockwood  or  a  Smith,  a  Taney  or  a  Marshall ;  the  decision 
of  the  highest  tribunal  known  to  the  Constitution  of  the  country  must  be  final 
until  it  has  been  reversed  by  an  equally  high  authority.  (Cries  of  "Bravo," 
and  applause.)  Hence  I  am  opposed  to  this  doctrine  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  by 
which  he  proposes  to  take  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  upon  these  high  constitutional  questions  to  a  Re 
publican  caucus  sitting  in  the  country.  (A  voice — "  Call  it  Free-soil,"  and 
cheers.)  Yes,  or  to  any  other  caucus  or  town  meeting,  whether  it  be  Re 
publican,  American,  or  Democratic.  (Cheers.)  I  respect  the  decisions  of 
that  august  tribunal ;  I  shall  always  bow  in  deference  to  them.  I  am  a  law- 
abiding  man.  1  will  sustain  the  Constitution  of  my  country  as  our  fathers 
have  made  it.  I  will  yield  obedience  to  the  laws,  whether  I  like  them  or 
not,  as  I  find  them  on  the  statute-book.  I  will  sustain  the  judicial  tribunals 
and  constituted  authorities  in  all  matters  within  the  pale  of  their  jurisdiction, 
as  defined  by  the  Constitution.  (Applause.)  But  I  am  equally  free  to  say 
that  the  reason  assigned  by  Mr.  Lincoln  for  resisting  the  decision  of  the  Su 
preme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case  does  not  in  itself  meet  my  approbation. 
Ho  objects  to  it  because  that  decision  declared  that  a  negro  descended  from 


THE   CAMPAIGN    OF    1858.  413 

African  parents  who  were  brought  here  and  sold  as  slaves  is  not  and  can  not 
be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  He  says  it  is  wrong,  because  it  deprives 
the  negro  of  the  benefits  of  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  says  that 
citizens  of  one  state  shall  enjoy  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  of 
the  several  states ;  in  other  words,  he  thinks  it  wrong  because  it  deprives 
the  negro  of  the  privileges,  immunities,  and  rights  of  citizenship,  which  pertain, 
according  to  that  decision,  only  to  the  white  man.  I  am  free  to  say  to  you 
that  in  my  opinion  this  government  of  ours  is  founded  on  the  white  basis. 
(Great  applause.)  It  was  made  by  the  white  man  for  the  benefit  of  the  white 
man,  to  be  administered  by  white  men  in  such  manner  as  they  should  de 
termine.  (Cheers.)  It  is  also  true  that  a  negro,  an  Indian,  or  any  other 
man  of  an  inferior  race  to  a  white  man,  should  be  permitted  to  enjoy,  and 
humanity  requires  that  he  should  have,  all  the  rights,  privileges,  and  immu 
nities  which  he  is  capable  of  exercising  consistent  with  the  safety  of  society. 
I  would  give  him  every  right  and  every  privilege  which  his  capacity  would 
enable  him  to  enjoy,  consistent  with  the  good  of  the  society  in  which  he 
lived.  ("  Bravo.")  But  you  may  ask  me  what  are  these  rights  and  these 
privileges.  My  answer  is  that  each  state  must  decide  for  itself  the  nature 
and  extent  of  these  rights.  ("  Hear,  hear,"  and  applause.)  Illinois  has  de 
cided  for  herself.  We  have  decided  that  the  negro  shall  not  be  a  slave,  and 
we  have  at  the  same  time  decided  that  he  shall  not  vote,  or  serve  on  juries, 
or  enjoy  political  privileges.  I  am  content  with  that  system  of  policy  which 
we  have  adopted  for  ourselves.  (Cheers.)  I  deny  the  right  of  any  other 
state  to  complain  of  our  policy  in  that  respect,  or  to  interfere  with  it,  or  to 
attempt  to  change  it.  On  the  other  hand,  the  State  of  Maine  has  decided 
that  in  that  state  a  negro  may  vote  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man.  The 
sovereign  power  of  Maine  had  the  right  to  prescribe  that  rule  for  herself. 
Illinois  has  no  right  to  complain  of  Maine  for  conferring  the  right  of  negro 
suffrage,  nor  has  Maine  any  right  to  interfere  with,  or  complain  of  Illinois  be 
cause  she  has  denied  negro  suffrage.  (''That's  so,"  and  cheers.)  The  State 
of  New  York  has  decided  by  her  Constitution  that  a  negro  may  vote  provided 
that  he  owns  $250  worth  of  property,  but  not  otherwise.  The  rich  negro 
can  vote,  but  the  poor  one  can  not.  (Laughter.)  Although  that  distinction 
does  not  commend  itself  to  my  judgment,  yet  I  assert  that  the  sovereign 
power  of  New  York  had  a  right  to  prescribe  that  form  of  the  elective  fran 
chise.  Kentucky,  Virginia  and  other  states,  have  provided  that  negroes,  or 
a  certain  class  of  them  in  those  states,  shall  be  slaves,  having  neither  civil 
or  political  rights.  Without  endorsing  the  wisdom  of  that  decision,  I  assort 
that  Virginia  has  the  same  power  by  virtue  of  her  sovereignty  to  protect 
slavery  within  her  limits  as  Illinois  has  to  banish  it  forever  from  our  own 
borders.  ("  Hear,  hear,"  and  applause.)  I  assert  the  right  of  each  state  to 
decide  for  itself  on  all  these  questions,  and  I  do  not  subscribe  to  the  doctrine 
of  my  friend,  Mr.  Lincoln,  that  uniformity  is  either  desirable  or  possible.  I 
do  not  acknowledge  that  the  states  must  all  be  free  or  must  all  be  slave. 
I  do  not  acknowledge  that  the  negro  must  have  civil  and  political  rights 
everywhere  or  nowhere.  I  do  not  acknowledge  that  the  Chinese  must  have 
the  same  rights  in  California  that  we  would  confer  upon  him  here.  I  do  not 
acknowledge  that  the  cooley  imported  into  this  country  must  necessarily  be 
put  upon  an  equality  with  the  white  race.  I  do  not  acknowledge  any  of 
these  doctrines  of  uniformity  in  the  local  and  domestic  regulations  in  the  dif 
ferent  states.  ("'Bravo,"  and  cheers.) 

Thus  you  see,  my  fellow-citizens,  that  the  issues  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and 
myself,  as  respective  candidates  for  the  United  States  Senate,  as  made  up,  are 
direct,  unequivocal,  and  irreconcilable.  He  goes  for  uniformity  in  our  domes 
tic  institutions,  for  a  war  of  sections,  until  one  or  the  other  shall  be  subdued. 
I  go  for  the  great  principle  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill,  the  right  of  the  peo- 


414  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A   DOUGLAS. 

pie  to  decide  for  themselves.  (Senator  Douglas  was  here  interrupted  by  the 
wildest  applause ;  cheer  after  cheer  rent  the  air;  the  band  struck  up  "  Yankee 
Doodle;"  rockets  and  pieces  of  fireworks  blazed  forth,  and  the  enthusiasm  was 
so  intense  and  universal  that  it  was  some  time  before  order  could  be  restored 
and  Mr.  Douglas  resume.  The  scene  at  this  period  was  glorious  beyond  de 
scription.) 

On  the  other  point,  Mr.  Lincoln  goes  for  a  warfare  upon  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  because  of  their  judicial  decision  in  the  Dred  Scott  case. 
I  yield  obedience  to  the  decisions  of  that  court — to  the  final  determination  of 
the  highest  judicial  tribunal  known  to  our  Constitution.  He  objects  to  the 
Dred  Scott  decision  because  it  does  not  put  the  negro  in  the  possession  of  the 
rights  of  citizenship  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man.  I  am  opposed  to 
negro  equality.  (Immense  applause.)  I  repeat  that  this  nation  is  a  white 
people — a  people  composed  of  European  descendants— a  people  that  have 
established  this  government  for  themselves  and  their  posterity,  and  I  am  in 
favor  of  preserving  not  only  the  purity  of  the  blood,  but  the  purity  of  the 
government,  from  any  mixture  or  amalgamation  with  inferior  races.  (Renewed 
applause.)  I  have  seen  the  effects  of  this  mixture  of  superior  and  inferior 
races — this  amalgamation  of  white  men  and  Indians  and  negroes ;  we  have 
seen  it  in  Mexico,  in  Central  America,  in  South  America,  and  in  all  the  Span 
ish-American  states,  and  its  result  has  been  degeneration,  demoralization,  and 
degradation  below  the  capacity  for  self-government.  ("  True,  true.") 

I  am  opposed  to  taking  any  step  that  recognizes  the  negro  man  or  the  In 
dian  as  the  equal  of  the  white  man.  I  am  opposed  to  giving  him  a  voice  in 
the  administration  of  the  government.  I  would  extend  to  the  negro,  and  the 
Indian,  and  to  all  dependent  races,  every  right,  every  privilege,  and  every 
immunity  consistent  with  the  safety  and  welfare  of  the  white  races  (bravo) ; 
but  equality  they  never  should  have,  either  political  or  social,  or  in  any  other 
respect  whatever.  (Cries  of  "  Good,"  "  good,"  and  protracted  cheers.) 

My  friends,  you  see  that  the  issues  are  distinctly  drawn.  I  stand  by  the 
same  platform  that  I  have  so  often  proclaimed  to  you  and  to  the  people  of 
Illinois  heretofore.  (Cries  of  "That's  true,"  and  applause.)  I  stand  by  the 
Democratic  organization,  yield  obedience  to  its  usages,  and  support  its  regu 
lar  nominations.  (Intense  enthusiasm.)  I  indorse  and  approve  the  Cincin 
nati  platform  (renewed  applause),  and  I  adhere  to  and  intend  to  carry  out, 
as  part  of  that  platform,  the  great  principle  of  self-government,  which  recog 
nizes  the  right  of  the  people  in  each  state  and  territory  to  decide  for  them 
selves  their  domestic  institutions.  ("Good,"  "good,"  and  cheers.)  In  other 
words,  if  the  Lecompton  issue  shall  arise  again,  you  have  only  to  turn  back 
and  see  where  you  have  found  me  during  the  last  six  months,  and  then  rest 
assured  that  you  will  find  me  in  the  same  position,  battling  for  the  same  prin 
ciple,  and  vindicating  it  from  assault  from  whatever  quarter  it  may  come,  so 
long  as  I  have  the  power  to  do  it.  (Cheers.) 

Fellow-citizens,  you  now  have  before  you  the  outlines  of  the  propositions 
which  I  intend  to  discuss  before  the  people  of  Illinois  during  the  pending  cam 
paign.  I  have  spoken  without  preparation,  and  in  a  very  desultory  manner, 
and  may  have  omitted  some  points  which  I  desired  to  discuss,  and  may  have 
been  less  implicit  on  others  than  I  could  have  wished.  I  have  made  up  my 
mind  to  appeal  to  the  people  against  the  combination  which  has  been  made 
against  me.  (Enthusiastic  applause.)  The  Republican  leaders  have  formed 
an  alliance — an  unholy,  unnatural  alliance — with  a  portion  of  the  unscrupulous 
federal  office-holders.  I  intend  to  fight  that  allied  army  wherever  I  meet  them. 
(Cheers.)  I  know  they  deny  the  alliance  while  avowing  the  common  purpose, 
but  yet  these  men  who  are  trying  to  divide  the  Democratic  party  for  the  pur 
pose  of  electing  a  Republican  senator  in  my  place  are  just  as  much  the  agents, 
the  tools,  the  supporters  of  Mr.  Lincoln  as  if  they  were  avowed  Republicans, 


THE   CAMPAIGN"   OF    1858.  415 

and  expect  their  reward  for  their  services  when  the  Eepublicans  come  into 
power.  (Cries  of  "  That  is  true,"  and  cheers.)  I  shall  deal  with  these  allied 
forces  just  as  the  Russians  dealt  with  the  allies  at  Sebastopol.  The  Russians, 
when  they  fired  a  broadside  at  the  common  enemy,  did  not  stop  to  inquire, 
whether  it  hit  a  Frenchman,  an  Englishman,  or  a  Turk,  nor  will  I  stop 
(Laughter  and  great  applause) ;  nor  shall  I  stop  to  inquire  whether  my  blows 
hit  the  Republican  leaders  or  their  allies,  who  are  holding  the  federal  offices, 
and  yet  acting  in  concert  with  the  Republicans  to  defeat  the  Democratic  party 
and  its  nominees.  (Cheers,  and  cries  of  "  Bravo  !")  I  do  not  include  all  of 
the  federal  office-holders  in  this  remark.  Such  of  them  as  are  Democracts, 
and  show  their  Democracy  by  remaining  inside  of  the  Democratic  organization 
and  supporting  its  nominees,  I  recognize  as  Democrats ;  but  those  who,  having 
been  defeated  inside  of  the  organization,  go  outside,  and  attempt  to  divide  and 
destroy  the  party  in  concert  with  the  Republican  leaders,  have  ceased  to  be 
Democracts,  and  belong  to  the  allied  army,  whose  avowed  object  is  to  elect 
the  Republican  ticket  by  dividing  and  destroying  the  Democratic  party. 
(Cheers.) 

My  friends,  I  have  exhausted  myself  (cries  of  "  Don't  stop  yet),  and  I  cer 
tainly  have  fatigued  you  ("  No,  no,"  and  "  Go  on")  in  the  long  and  desultory 
remarks  which  I  have  made.  ("  Go  on  longer,"  "  "We  want  to  hear  you," 
etc.)  It  is  now  two  nights  since  I  have  been  to  bed,  and  I  think  I  have  a  right 
to  a  little  sleep.  (Cheers,  and  a  voice — "May  you  sleep  soundly.")  I  will, 
however,  have  an  opportunity  of  meeting  you  face  to  face,  and  addressing  you 
on  more  than  one  occasion  before  the  November  election.  (Cries  of  "We 
hope  so,"  etc.)  In  conclusion,  I  must  again  say  to  you,  justice  to  my  own 
feelings  demands  it,  that  my  gratitude  for  the  welcome  you  have  extended  to 
me  on  this  occasion  knows  no  bounds,  and  can  be  described  by  no  language 
which  I  can  command.  (Cries  of  "  We  did  our  duty,"  and  cheers.)  I  see  that 
I  am  literally  at  home  when  among  my  constituents.  (Cries  of  "  Welcome 
home,"  "  You  have  done  your  duty,"  "  Good,"  etc.)  This  welcome  has  amply 
repaid  me  for  every  effort  that  I  have  made  in  the  public  service  during  nearly 
twenty -five  years  that  I  have  held  office  at  your  hands.  (Cheers ;  a  voice — 
"You  will  hold  it  longer.")  It  not  only  compensates  me  for  the  past,  but  it 
furnishes  an  inducement  and  incentive  for  future  effort,  which  no  man,  no 
matter  how  patriotic,  can  feel  who  has  not  witnessed  the  magnificent  reception 
you  have  extended  to  me  to-riiglu  on  my  return. 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  remarks  of  Judge  Douglas  there  was  a  spontaneous 
outburst  of  enthusiastic  admiration.  Cheers  upon  cheers  followed,  and  the 
dense  masses  who  had  stood  so  long  in  solid  ranks  refused  to  separate,  but 
continued  for  some  time  in  vociferous  applause. 

Then  followed  another  discharge  of  elegant  fireworks.  One  piece,  situ 
ated  at  the  northwest  corner  of  Dearborne  and  Lake  Streets,  was  soon  in  a 
blaze,  and  as  the  fire  ran  from  point  to  point  on  its  surface,  there  was  gradu- 
tally  revealed,  in  letters  of  dazzling  and  sparkling  light,  the  glorious  motto 
"  POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY."  This  handsome  and  appropriate  display  renewed 
the  enthusiasm  of  the  multitude,  and  for  more  than  an  hour  thousands  of  our 
people  surrounded  the  hotel,  cheering  Douglas,  Popular  Sovereignty,  and  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  Act. 


416  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

SAME  SUBJECT  CONTINUED. 

MK.  LINCOLN  addressed  a  Republican  meeting  at  the  same 
place  on  the  next  evening,  and  the  active  campaign  had  now 
been  formally  opened.  The  Republican  leaders  were  sanguine 
of  success.  They  became  extravagantly  delighted  with  the 
Danites.  On  the  14th  of  July  the  leading  Republican  paper 
of  Chicago  addressed  words  of  strong  encouragement  to  that 
faction.  It  affected  a  fear  of  its  strength,  and  had  the  effron 
tery  to  tell  its  readers  that  Douglas  and  his  party  were  a  mere 
handful  and  that  the  real  party  with  whom  the  Republicans 
would  have  to  contend  would  be  the  Danites. 

It  may  not  be  out  of  place  here  to  remark  that  as  nearly  as 
could  be  estimated  by  those  not  within  the  inner  circles  of 
Republican  councils,  there  was  about  sixty  thousand  dollars  of 
Republican  money,  besides  considerable  self  respect  recklessly 
sacrificed  during  that  year  in  keeping  the  Danite  party  on  its 
legs.  It  was  an  expensive  item  in  the  cost  of  the  election, 
and  we  doubt  very  much  if  the  organization  and  opposition  of 
that  faction  did  not  give  the  Democratic  party  additional 
strength  by  enlisting  the  timid  and  negligent  in  the  cause 
which  was  so  fearfully  threatened  by  the  allies. 

On  the  night  of  the  15th  Judge  Douglas  was  visited  by  a 
delegation  of  the  German  Democrats  of  Chicago — than  whom 
a  nobler  band  of  patriots  does  not  exist  in  the  Union.  It  is 
true  they  form  but  a  small  portion  of  the  German  population 
of  Chicago,  but  they  are  men  of  intelligence,  education  and 
experience.  They  understand  the  true  principles  of  American 
freedom,  and  the  Constitution  has  no  more  devoted  supporters 
in  the  state.  The  speeches  on  the  occasion  were  most  happy. 

On  the  morning  of  the  16th  Judge  Douglas  left  Chicago 
on  his  way  to  Springfield  to  meet  the  Democratic  State  Com 
mittee.  The  object  and  intention  of  his  visit  were  well  known. 
All  along  the  road  at  every  station  he  was  greeted  with  all 
possible  demonstrations  of  welcome.  At  Bloomington,  where 
he  arrived  in  the  afternoon,  he  was  met  by  a  vast  concourse  of 


THE   CAMPAIGN    OF    1858.  41 7 

people  ;  he  was  greeted  with  a  salute,  which  was  re-echoed  by 
a  cannon  carried  down  on  the  train  by  a  large  delegation  from 
Joliet. 

In  the  evening  he  made  a  speech  of  over  two  hours  and  a 
half.  Of  that  speech  an  edition  of  eighty  thousand  was 
printed  in  pamphlet  form  and  distributed  all  over  Illinois,  and 
copies  were  sent  to  all  parts  of  the  Union.  It  was  also  pub 
lished  in  all  the  Democratic  papers  of  the  state,  and  thus  dis 
tributed  everywhere. 

Particular  reference  is  made  to  this  speech  because  in  it  is 
contained  an  assertion  of  doctrine  exactly  similar  in  all  practi 
cal  operation  and  effect  with  that  subsequently  expressed  at 
Freeport.  At  that  time,  however,  July  16th,  the  allies  thought 
there  was  no  chance  of  Douglas'  success,  and  it  was  not 
thought  necessary  to  discover  treason  to  Democratic  faith  in 
sentiments  corresponding  exactly  with  those  uniformly  ex 
pressed  by  him  during  the  previous  eight  years  of  active  dis 
cussion  of  the  slavery  question.  The  next  day  he  proceeded 
on  his  way  to  Springfield.  Present  at  his  speech  in  Bloom- 
ington  and  on  board  the  same  train  to  Springfield  was  Mr. 
Lincoln.  As  the  train  proceeded  it  grew  in  length.  At  every 
station  there  was  a  mass  of  Democrats  waiting  to  greet  the 
champion  of  Democratic  principles.  Additional  cars  had  to 
be  added,  and  when  the  train  reached  Springfield  it  had 
twenty-five  cars,  each  filled  to  overflowing  with  enthusiastic 
Democrats.  Lincoln  was  perhaps  the  only  Lincoln  man  on  the 
train.  During  the  day,  which  had  been  sultry,  there  fell 
heavy  showers,  yet  the  Democracy  were  not  deterred  in  their 
determination  to  honor  the  man  against  whom  there  had  been 
arraigned  the  force  of  such  an  extraordinary  combination. 
Large  trains  filled  to  overflowing  had  come  up  from  the  lower 
part  of  the  state.  The  vast  multitude  repaired  to  Edward's 
grove,  and  notwithstanding  the  ground  was  wet,  and  the 
trees  dripping  with  the  rain  that  had  fallen,  for  three  hours 
they  remained  listening  to  the  voice  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas, 
who,  in  the  name  of  Democratic  truth,  the  Constitution  and 
the  vested  rights  of  the  people  of  the  states  and  territories, 
bid  Black  Republicanism,  and  its  allies  bold  defiance.  The 
writer  of  these  pages  witnessed  that  day  of  rejoicing,  excite 
ment  and  enthusiasm.  It  is  imposible  to  describe  it.  It  was 
the  voluntary  outpouring  of  popular  enthusiasm  towards  a 

S2 


418  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

man  who  had  no  patronage  at  his  disposal,  who  was  de 
nounced  as  a  political  outcast,  yet  who  with  words  of  truth 
and  burning  eloquence  proclaimed  the  everlasting  principles 
of  Democracy.  His  speech  on  this  occasion  was  published  in 
full,  and  an  edition  of  fifty  thousand  copies  in  pamphlet  form 
was  distributed  in  Illinois  and  other  states. 

At  night  Lincoln  spoke  in  reply  at  the  State  House. 

During  the  next  few  days  Judge  Douglas,  acting  with  the 
State  Democratic  Committee,  fixed  upon  a  list  of  appointments 
for  Democratic  meetings,  which  list  was  published  at  once  in 
all  the  Democratic  papers  of  the  State.  This  first  list  extended 
only  to  the  21st  of  August,  but  was  afterwards  extended  to 
the  last  of  October.  The  complete  list  was  as  follows : 

Clinton,  on  July  27th,  then  in  succession  at  Monticello,  Paris, 
Hillsboro,  Greenville,  Edwardsville,  Highland,  Winchester, 
Pittsfield,  Beardstown,  Havana,  Lewiston,  Peoria,  Lacon, 
Ottawa,  Galena,  Freeport,  Junction,  Joliet,  Pontiac,  Lincoln, 
Jacksonville,  Carlinville,  Belleville,  Waterloo,  Chester,  Jones- 
boro,  Benton,  Charleston,  Danville,  Urbana,  Kankakee,  Hene- 
pin,  Henry,  Metamora,  Pekin,  Oquaka,  Monmouth,  Galesburg, 
Macomb,  Carthage,  Quincy,  Alton,  Gillespie,  Decatur,  Spring 
field,  Atlanta,  Bloomington,  Toulon,  Genessee,  Rock  Island — 
the  last  being  on  Friday,  October  30 — the  election  taking  place 
on  Tuesday,  the  3d  of  November.  These  were  his  regular  ap 
pointments,  but  in  addition  to  these  he  spoke  perhaps  at 
twenty  other  places,  being  points  on  his  route,  at  which  the 
people  would  turn  out,  and  insist  upon  his  speaking  to  them. 
His  speeches  at  his  regular  appointments  averaged  about  two 
hours  and  a  half  each ;  except  those  at  the  joint  discussions, 
where  the  time  was  limited  to  one  hour  and  a  half.  A  glance 
at  the  map  of  the  State  will  give  an  idea  of  the  distance  trav 
eled,  and  the  activity  necessary  to  get  from  point  to  point 
upon  the  list  of  designated  places.  It  was  a  task  requiring  a 
wonderful  display  of  fortitude  and  of  physical  endurance.  At 
almost  each  of  these  places  Senator  Douglas  was  met  at  a  dis 
tance  from  the  town  by  committees,  who  in  the  name  of  the 
Democracy  welcomed  him.  to  the  place.  To  all  these  speeches 
Judge  Douglas  made  a  response  extending  from  ten  to  thirty 
minutes.  He  was  then  escorted  to  the  place  of  meeting  where 
he  delivered  his  regular  speech. 

On  the  24th  of  July  Mr.  Douglas  returned  to  Chicago,  pre- 


THE    CAMPAIGN    OF    1858.  419 

paratory  to  setting  out  to  meet  his  appointments,  the  first  of 
which  was  fixed  at  Clinton  on  the  27th.  Mr.  Lincoln  addressed 
him  a  note  proposing  that  they  should  canvass  the  State  to 
gether.  Lincoln  or  his  friends  had  seen  enough  of  the  enthu 
siasm  of  the  people  along  the  line  of  Mr.  Douglas'  late  journey 
to  satisfy  every  one  that  wherever  Douglas  was  announced  to 
speak  there  would  be  no  lack  of  auditors — men  of  all  parties. 
To  allow  Douglas  to  address  these  immense  gatherings  of 
Democrats  and  Republicans,  without  any  reply  being  made  to 
his  remarks,  was  something  that  required  attention  if  it  could 
not  be  prevented.  Mr.  Douglas  responded,  stating  his  regret 
that  Mr.  Lincoln  had  not  thought  it  proper  to  make  the  pro 
posal  at  an  earlier  day,  and  before  he  (Mr.  D.),  had  with  the 
Democratic  State  Committee  arranged  a  series  of  exclusive 
Democratic  meetings,  at  which  not  only  he,  but  the  Demo 
cratic  nominees  for  Congress  and  the  Legislature  were  ex 
pected  to  speak.  Mr.  Lincoln  had  gone  down  to  Springfield 
with  him,  and  from  the  9th  to  the  24th  had  never  said  one 
word  upon  the  subject.  He,  however,  agreed  to  meet  Mr. 
Lincoln  once  in  each  congressional  district ;  and  that,  as  they 
had  already  both  spoken  at  Chicago  in  the  Second  District 
and  Springfield  in  the  Sixth  District,  they  would  have  one 
meeting  in  each  of  the  other  seven  districts.  He  then  left 
Chicago  and  proceeded  to  Clinton ;  Mr.  Lincoln  was  present 
on  that  occasion ;  he  next  went  to  Monticello,  where  Lincoln 
was  again  present.  Linco^  subsequently  accepted  Douglas' 
offer  in  a  letter  which,  for  its  strange  combination  of  phrases, 
has  become  historical  in  Illinois  as  "Lincoln's  conclusion." 
Judge  Douglas  then  named  the  following  places  for  the  joint 
discussions : 

Ottawa,  3d  District,  August  21. 


Freeport,  1st 

Jonesboro,  9th 

Charlston,  7th 

Galesburg,  4th 

Quincy,  5th 

Alton,  8th 


27. 
Sept.      15. 
"         18. 
Oct.         7. 
13. 
"         15. 


On  the  7th  of  August  Senator  Trumbull  spoke  at  Chicago, 
and  indulged  in  language  of  the  lowest  and  most  disreputable 
personal  abuse  of  Mr.  Douglas.  His  special  subject  was  the 
alleged  mutilation  of  the  "  Toombs  Bill."  That  speech  was  so 
boldly  vituperative,  and  contained  allegations  so  utterly  reck- 


420  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

less,  that  it  failed  in  producing  any  impression  save  disgust  for 
the  author.  His  allegations  were  promptly  exposed  and  tri 
umphantly  refuted. 

Douglas'  tour  over  the  State  was  a  succession  of  triumphs 
such  as  had  rarely  ever  been  witnessed  in  Illinois.  Presiden 
tial  aspirants  in  the  Democratic  party,  who  desired  his  defeat, 
hovered  about  Illinois,  and  were  alarmed  at  the  prospect.  The 
arm  of  Federal  power  fell  upon  officials  who  dared  say  they 
would  vote  for  Douglas.  Brainard  was  appointed  to  the 
marine  hospital  in  place  of  Dr.  M'VicKAR,  an  accomplished 
physician  and  a  Democrat  of  unimpeachable  integrity. 

An  amusing  incident  occurred  at  this  time,  and  it  is  ques 
tionable  whether  in  the  history  of  partizanship  a  parallel  can 
be  found  for  it.  A  venerable  gentleman  was  holding  a  small, 
very  small  Federal  office  in  Chicago.  He  was  the  father  of 
twenty-one  children ;  his  age,  his  democracy  and  his  patriar 
chal  character  could  not  save  him  from  destruction.  One  of 
the  respectable  statesmen  who,  living  far  off  from  Illinois  had 
taken  such  an  interest  in  Illinois  politics,  and  had  become  so 
anxious  for  Lincoln's  success,  reached  Chicago,  and  in  a  few 
days  it  was  ascertained  that  the  fate  of  the  venerable  office 
holder  was  sealed.  On  the  morning  when  the  papers  for  his 
removal  and  for  the  appointment  of  his  successor  were  about 
to  be  sent  off  to  Washington,  the  old  man  rushed  into  the 
hotel,  entered  unbidden  the  council  chamber  of  the  Danites, 
and  addressing  the  exalted  dispenser  of  Federal  patronage, 
exclaimed,  "  He  has  come  !  My  wife  have  my  twenty-second 

child  this  morning,  and  I  have  called  him ,  and 

he  look  very  much  like  you !" 

The  prefixes  to  the  family  name  of  the  boy  were  the  names 
of  Mr.  Buchanan's  embassador  to  Illinois.  Human  nature 
could  not  resist  that  appeal !  He  had  already  one  boy  named 
James  Buchanan,  and  another  Howell  Cobb.  Even  Danito 
revenge  yielded,  and  the  old  man  was  continued  in  office. 
The  old  man  afterwards  said  that  if  Bright  and  Fitch  would 
only  give  him  ordinary  time  and  notice  he  would  be  prepared 
for  them  when  they  should  come  to  Illinois  for  the  purpose  of 
removing  him.  Since  that  time,  however,  his  head  has  fallen, 
and  the  old  gentleman  is  no  longer  an  officer  of  the  govern 
ment. 


THE    CAMPAIGN   OP    1858.  421 


ME.    DOUGLAS   VISITS   HIS   FIRST   HOME   IN   ILLINOIS. 

On  August  the  7th,  1858,  Mr.  Douglas  reached  Winchester. 
The  people  had  taken  the  trouble  to  send  all  the  way  to  Alton 
for  a  piece  of  artillery  to  add  its  reverberating  tones  to  the 
welcome  they  had  prepared  for  him.  The  attendance  was 
very  large.  Winchester  claimed  Douglas  as  her  own.  The 
people  of  that  little  town  regarded  him  as  one  whose  history 
was  to  be  forever  identified  with  that  of  Winchester.  He  was 
greeted  with  the  most  unbounded  expressions  of  delight.  The 
Rev.  Perry  Bennett,  of  the  Baptist  church,  in  a  chaste  and 
eloquent  speech  welcomed  him  to  his  old  home — his  first  home 
in  Illinois.  Mr.  Douglas  thus  responded  to  the  address  : 

"  Ladies  and  gentlemen — fellow-citizens — To  say  that  I  am  profoundly  im 
pressed  with  the  keenest  gratitude  for  the  kind  and  cordial  welcome  you  have 
given  me  in  the  eloquent  and  too  partial  remarks  which  have  been  addressed 
to  me  is  but  a  feeble  expression  of  the  emotions  of  my  heart.  There  is  no 
spot  on  this  vast  globe  which  fills  me  with  such  emotions  as  when  I  come  to 
this  place,  and  recognize  the  faces  of  my  old  and  good  friends  who  now  sur 
round  me  and  bid  me  welcome.  Twenty-five  years  ago  I  entered  this  town 
on  foot,  with  my  coat  upon  my  arm,  without  an  acquaintance  in  a  thousand 
miles,  and  without  knowing  where  I  could  get  money  to  pay  a  week's  board. 
Here  I  made  the  first  six  dollars  I  ever  earned  in  my  life,  and  obtained  tho 
first  regular  occupation  that  I  ever  pursued.  For  the  first  time  in  my  life  I 
felt  that  the  responsibilities  of  manhood  were  upon  me,  although  I  was  under 
age,  for  I  had  none  to  advise  with,  and  knew  no  one  upon  whom  I  had  a 
right  to  call  for  assistance  or  friendship. 

"  Here  I  found  the  then  settlers  of  the  country  my  friends — my  first  start  in 
life  was  taken  here,  not  only  as  a  private  citizen,  but  my  first  election  to  pub 
lic  office  by  the  people  was  conferred  upon  me  by  those  whom  I  am  now 
addressing  and  by  their  fathers.  A  quarter  of  a  century  has  passed,  and  that 
penniless  boy  stands  before  you  with  his  heart  full  and  gushing  with  the  sen 
timents  which  such  associations  and  recollections  necessarily  inspire." 

Mr.  Douglas  subsequently  received  a  personal  welcome  from 
each  of  the  vast  multitude  assembled  at  Winchester.  Old 
times  and  old  events  were  discussed  familiarly;  and  men  who 
had  known  him  twenty-five  years  before  crowded  around  him 
with  an  affectionate  interest.  He  was  a  "  Winchester  boy," 
and  Winchester  people  regarded  him  with  fraternal  love  and 
admiration.  Scott  County,  united  with  Morgan,  sent  up  two 
members  of  the  Legislature  pledged  to  vote  for  the  re-election 
of  Stephen  A.  Douglas. 


422  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 


THE   FREEPORT    "  TREASON." 

During  1856.,  1857,  and  1858  the  Democratic  papers  of  Illi 
nois  and  the  Northwest,  and  Democratic  speakers,  including 
Mr.  Douglas,  in  explaining  and  defending  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
Act,  had  been  accustomed  to  quote  arguments  of  southern 
statesmen  to  show  that  necessarily,  in  all  communities,  the 
local  institutions  must  be  sustained  by  the  prevailing  public 
sentiment,  or  it  was  useless  to  endeavor  to  maintain  them. 
They  had  used  this  argument  to  prove  that  no  matter  what 
prohibitions  Congress  might  enact  against  slavery  in  the  terri 
tories,  if  the  people  desired  to  ha,ve  slaves  they  would  have 
them ;  and  local  courts  and  laws  would  lean  toward  and  pro 
tect  the  wishes  and  desires  of  the  people.  So,  on  the  other 
hand,  if  slavery  was  not  desired,  it  would  be  as  effectually  ex 
cluded  by  an  adverse  public  sentiment  as  it  could  be  by  posi 
tive  law.  Upon  this  point  they  quoted  as  the  views  of  a  gen 
tleman  deservedly  high  in  the  estimation  of  the  people  of  the 
South,  and  particularly  of  his  own  state,  the  following  remarks 
of  the  Hon.  James  L.  Orr,  of  South  Carolina,  made  in  1856,  in 
reference  to  the  practical  operation  of  the  Nebraska  Bill,  and 
these  views  were  constantly  presented  to  the  people  from  the 
stump  and  through  the  press : 

OPINION   OF   MR.    ORR   IN    1856. 

"  I  say,  although  I  deny  that  squatter  sovereignty  exists  in  the  territories 
of  Kansas  and  Nebraska  by  virtue  of  this  bill,  it  is  a  matter  practically  of  little 
consequence  whether  it  does  or  not ;  and  I  think  I  shall  be  able  to  satisfy  the 
gentleman  of  that.  The  gentleman  knows  that,  in  every  slaveholding  com 
munity  of  this  Union,  we  have  local  legislation  and  local  police  regulations 
appertaining  to  that  institution,  without  which  the  institution  would  not  only 
be  valueless  but  a  curse  to  the  community.  Without  them  the  slaveholder 
could  not  enforce  his  rights  when  invaded  by  others.  And  if  you  had  no 
local  legislation  for  the  purpose  of  giving  protection,  the  institution  would  be 
of  no  value.  I  can  appeal  to  every  gentleman  upon  this  floor,  who  represents 
a  slaveholding  constituency,  to  attest  the  truth  of  what  I  have  stated  upon 
that  point. 

"  Now,  the  legislative  authority  of  a  territory  is  invested  with  a  discretion 
to  vote  for  or  against  laws.  We  think  they  ought  to  pass  laws  in  every  ter 
ritory  where  the  territory  is  open  to  settlement,  and  slaveholders  go  there,  to 
protect  slave  property.  But  if  they  decline  to  pass  such  laws  what  is  the  re 
medy  ?  None,  sir.  If  the  majority  of  the  people  are  opposed  to  the  institu 
tion,  and  if  they  do  not  desire  it  engrafted  upon  the  territory,  all  they  have  to 
do  is  simply  to  decline  to  pass  laws  in  the  territorial  Legislature  for  its  protec- 


THE   CAMPAIGN    OF    1858.  423 

tion,  and  then  it  is  as  well  excluded  as  if  the  power  was  invested  in  the  ter 
ritorial  Legislature,  and  exercised  by  them  to  prohibit  it.  Now  I  ask  the  gen 
tleman  what  is  the  practical  importance  to  result  from  the  agitation  and  dis 
cussion  of  this  question  as  to  whether  squatter  sovereignty  does  or  does  not 
exist  ?  Practically,  it  is  a  matter  of  little  moment." 

In  June,  1857,  Mr.  Douglas,  at  the  invitation  of  the  mem 
bers  of  the  Grand  Jury  of  the  United  States  Court,  and  of 
other  visitors  at  Springfield,  delivered  a  speech  at  the  State 
House  upon  the  subject  of  Kansas  and  Utah  affairs,  and  upon 
the  Dred  Scott  decision.  This  speech  was  regarded  at  the 
time  as  the  most  thorough  and  complete  vindication  of  the 
policy  and  principles  ot  the  Democratic  party  upon  the  topics 
embraced  in  it  that  he  had  ever  made.  The  speech  had  a  wide 
circulation,  and  was  produced  in  most  of  the  leading  papers  in 
the  slaveholding  states  as  the  view  of  a  high-minded,  far-see 
ing,  and  national  statesman.  That  speech  has  often  been  re 
ferred  to  by  his  enemies,  even  after  the  Lecompton  difficulty 
had  occurred,  as  a  speech  embracing  the  best  and  clearest 
views  of  constitutional  law  and  of  sound  statesmanship.  In 
that  Springfield  speech  of  June  12,  1857,  a  speech  which  has 
been  held  up  as  a  model  one,  as  containing  nothing  but  sound 
Democratic  doctrine,  Mr.  Douglas,  in  explaining  what  had 
been  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case, 
used  the  following  clear  and  emphatic  language.  That  the 
Supreme  Court  had  decided — 

"  2d.  That  the  act  of  the  6th  of  March,  1820,  commonly  called  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise  Act,  was  unconstitutional  and  void  before  it  was  repealed 
by  the  Nebraska  Act,  and  consequently  did  not  and  could  not  have  the  legal 
effect  of  extinguishing  a  master's  right  to  a  slave  in  that  territory. 

"  While  the  right  continues  in  full  force  under  the  guarantee  of  the  Con 
stitution,  and  can  not  be  divested  or  alienated  by  an  act  of  Congress,  it  ne 
cessarily  remains  a  barren  and  worthless  right  unless  sustained,  protected, 
and  enforced  by  appropriate  police  regulations  and  local  legislation  present 
ing  adequate  remedies  for  its  violation.  These  regulations  and  remedies  must 
necessarily  depend  entirely  upon  the  will  and  wishes  of  the  people  of  the  Ter 
ritory,  as  they  can  only  be  prescribed  by  the  local  Legislature. 

"  Hence  the  great  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  and  self-government  is 
sustained  and  firmly  established  by  the  authority  of  this  decision." 

In  his  Bloomington  speech,  July  16th,  1858,  he  thus  re 
peated  the  declaration  of  the  same  doctrine  : 

"I  tell  you,  my  friends,  it  is  impossible,  under  our  institutions,  to  force 
slavery  on  an  unwilling  people.  If  this  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  in 
serted  in  the  Nebraska  Bill  be  fairly  carried  out,  by  letting  the  people  decide 


424  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

the  question  for  themselves  by  a  fair  vote,  at  a  fair  election,  and  with  honest 
returns,  slavery  will  never  exist  one  day  or  one  hour  in  any  Territory  against 
the  unfriendly  legislation  of  an  unfriendly  people.  I  care  not  how  the  Dred 
Scott  decision  may  have  settled  the  abstract  question  so  far  as  the  practical 
result  is  concerned ;  for,  to  use  the  language  of  an  eminent  southern  senator 
on  this  very  question : 

"  '  i  do  not  care  a  fig  which  way  the  decision  shall  be,  for  it  is  of  no  par 
ticular  consequence ;  slavery  can  not  exist  a  day  or  an  hour  in  any  territory 
or  state  unless  it  has  affirmative  laws  sustaining  and  supporting  it,  furnishing 
police  regulations  and  remedies,  and  an  omission  to  furnish  them  would  be  as 
fatal  as  a  constitutional  prohibition.  "Without  affirmative  legislation  in  its 
favor,  slavery  could  not  exist  any  longer  than  a  new-born  infant  could  survive 
under  the  heat  of  the  sun  on  a  barren  rock  without  protection.  It  would 
wilt  and  die  for  the  want  of  support.' 

"  Hence,  if  the  people  of  a  territory  want  slavey,  they  will  encourage  it 
by  passing  affirmatory  laws,  and  the  necessary  police  regulations,  patrol  laws, 
and  slave  code ;  if  they  do  not  want  it  they  will  withhold  that  legislation, 
and  by  withholding  it  slavery  is  as  dead  as  if  it  was  prohibited  by  a  consti 
tutional  prohibition — (cheers) — especially  if,  in  addition,  their  legislation  is 
unfriendly,  as  it  would  be  if  they  were  opposed  to  it.  They  could  pass  such 
local  laws  and  police  regulations  as  would  drive  slavery  out  in  one  day,  or 
one  hour,  if  they  were  opposed  to  it,  and  therefore,  so  far  as  the  question  of 
slavery  in  the  territories  is  concerned,  so  far  as  the  principle  of  popular  sove 
reignty  is  concerned,  in  its  practical  operation,  it  matters  x  not  how  the  Dred 
Scott  case  may  be  decided  with  reference  to  the  territories.  My  own  opinion 
on  that  law  point  is  well  known.  It  is  shown  by  my  votes  and  speeches  in 
Congress.  But,  be  it  as  it  may,  the  question  was  an  abstract  question,  invit 
ing  no  practical  results,  and  whether  slavery  shall  exist  or  shall  not  exist  in 
any  state  or  territory  will  depend  upon  whether  the  people  are  for  it  or 
against  it,  and  whichever  way  they  shall  decide  it  in  any  territory  or  in  any 
state  will  be  entirely  satisfactory  to  me.  (Cheers.)" 

In  his  speech  at  Springfield,  July  18,  1858,  he  repeated 
substantially  the  same  remarks  upon  this  point — the  impossi 
bility  of  forcing  or  prohibiting  slavery  against  the  wishes  of 
the  people.  Mr.  Douglas  and  his  friends  also  frequently 
quoted  Mr.  Buchanan's  clear  statement  of  the  same  doctrine, 
in  his  letter  accepting  the  Cincinnati  nomination,  as  follows : 

"  This  legislation  (Kansas-Nebraska  Act)  is  founded  upon  principles  as 
ancient  as  free  government  itself,  and  in  accordance  with  them  has  simply  de 
clared  that  the  people  of  a  territory,  like  those  of  a  state,  shall  decide  for 
themselves  whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their  limits." 

On  August  21  the  first  joint  discussion  between  Lincoln 
and  Douglas  took  place  ;  this  occurred  at  Ottawa,  in  La  Salle 
county,  a  strong  Republican  district,  then  and  now  repre 
sented  in  Congress  by  Mr.  Lovejoy.  The  crowd  in  attend 
ance  was  a  large  one,  and  about  equally  divided  in  political 
sentiment— the  enthusiasm  of  the  democracy  having  brought 


THE   CAMPAIGN   OF    1858.  425 

out  more  than  a  due  proportion  of  that  party  to  hear  and  see 
Douglas.  His  thrilling  tones,  his  manly  defiance  towards  the 
enemies  of  the  party,  assured  his  friends,  if  any  assurance  was 
wanting,  that  he  was  the  same  unconquered  and  unconquerable 
Democrat  that  for  twenty-five  years  he  had  been  proved  to 
be.  Douglas  opened  the  discussion  and  spoke  one  hour; 
Lincoln  followed,  his  time  being  limited  to  an  hour  and  a  half, 
yet  he  yielded  thirteen  minutes  before  the  expiration  of  his 
time.  The  speeches  delivered  on  Saturday  afternoon  were 
published  in  the  Chicago  Times,  and  Press  and  Tribune,  on 
Sunday  afternoon.  They  had  a  wide  circulation.  The  effect 
of  them  was  most  damaging  to  Lincoln.  It  was,  therefore, 
deemed  necessary  to  concoct  some  plan  to  break  off  the  Dem 
ocracy  from  Douglas,  by  placing  the  latter  in  the  position  of  a 
preacher  of  political  heresy.  The  next  joint  meeting  was  to 
be  at  Freeport,  on  Friday,  the  27th,  and  during  the  interval 
a  meeting  of  the  Danite  and  Republican  leaders  was  held  at 
Chicago  to  prepare  some  trap  for  Douglas. 

The  speeches  of  Mr.  Douglas,  Mr.  Orr,  and  the  paragraphs 
from  Mr.  Buchanan's  inaugural,  were  taken  by  the  Danite 
and  Republican  leaders  as  the  basis  of  a  question  to  be  pro 
pounded  to  Mr.  Douglas  at  Freeport.  If  he  answered  nega 
tively,  the  answer  was  to  be  used  by  the  allies  as  a  repudiation 
of  the  principles  of  the  Nebraska  Bill,  as  in  direct  variance 
with  the  established  doctrine  of  the  party  as  declared  by 
himself  and  by  all  others;  and  as  more  pro-slavery  than  even 
the  people  of  South  Carolina  asked  for.  If  he  answered  in 
the  affirmative,  then  he  was  to  be  denounced  as  a  preacher  of 
a  political  heresy,  according  to  the  Republican  interpretation 
of  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  The  questions  were,  therefore, 
prepared,  and  when  the  parties  met  at  Freeport,  on  the 
27th,  Mr.  Lincoln,  who  had  the  opening,  drew  from  his  pocket 
a  paper  containing  four  questions,  all  (so  he  said)  that  he  had 
had  time  to  prepare  for  the  occasion.  Those  questions  were 
as  follows : 

"  1.  If  the  people  of  Kansas  shall,  by  means  entirely  unobjectionable  in  all 
other  respects,  adopt  a  state  Constitution,  and  ask  admission  into  the  Union 
under  it,  before  they  have  the  requisite  number  of  inhabitants,  according  to 
the  English  bill,  to  wit:  ninety-three  thousand,  will  you  vote  to  admit 
them? 

"  2.    Can  the  people  of  the  United  States  territory,  in  any  lawful  way. 


426  LIFE   OF    STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS. 

against  the  wishes  of  any  citizen  of  the  United  States,  exclude  slavery  from 
their  limits  prior  to  the  formation  of  a  state  Constitution  ? 

"  3.  If  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  shall  decide  that  states  can 
not  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits,  are  you  in  favor  of  acquiescing  in 
adopting  and  following  such  decision  as  a  rule  of  political  action  ? 

"  4.  Are  you  in  favor  of  acquiring  additional  territory  in  disregard  of  how 
such  acquisition  may  affect  the  nation  on  the  slavery  question  ? 

The  second  question  was  one  involving  the  material  point 
upon  which  the  confederates  proposed  to  make  capital.  The 
other  questions  really  amounted  to  nothing,  and  were  present 
ed,  with  ostrich-like  sagacity,  under  an  impression  that  Douglas 
would  not  perceive  the  hidden  purpose.  In  his  speech  he  thus 
replied  to  the  four  questions : 

"  First  he  desires  to  know,  If  the  people  of  Kansas  shall  form  a  Constitu 
tion  by  means  entirely  proper  and  unobjectionable,  and  ask  admission  into 
the  Union  as  a  state  before  they  have  the  requisite  population  for  a  member 
of  Congress,  whether  I  will  vote  for  that  admission  ?  "Well,  now,  I  regret 
exceedingly  that  he  did  not  answer  that  interrogatory  himself  before  he  put 
it  to  me,  in  order  that  we  might  understand,  and  not  be  left  to  infer,  on  which 
side  he  is.  Mr.  Trumbull,  during  the  last  session  of  Congress,  voted  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end  against  the  admission  of  Oregon,  although  a  free  state, 
because  she  had  not  the  requisite  population  for  a  member  of  Congress.  Mr. 
Trumbull  would  not  consent,  under  any  circumstances,  to  let  a  state,  free  or 
slave,  come  into  the  Union  until  it  had  the  requisite  population.  As  Mr. 
Trumbull  is  in  the  field  lighting  for  Mr.  Lincoln,  I  would  like  to  have  Mr. 
Lincoln  answer  his  own  question,  and  tell  me  whether  he  is  fighting  Trum 
bull  on  that  issue  or  not.  But  I  will  answer  his  question.  In  reference  to 
Kansas,  it  is  my  opinion  that,  as  she  has  population  enough  to  constitute  a 
slave  state,  she  has  people  enough  for  a  free  state.  I  will  not  make  Kansas 
an  exceptional  case  to  the  other  states  of  the  Union.  I  hold  it  to  be  a  sound 
rule  of  universal  application  to  require  a  territory  to  contain  the  requisite 
population  for  a  member  of  Congress  before  it  is  admitted  as  a  state  into  the 
Union.  I  made  that  proposition  in  the  Senate  in  1856,  and  I  renewed  it 
during  the  last  session,  in  a  bill  providing  that  no  territory  of  the  United 
States  should  form  a  Constitution  and  apply  for  admission  until  it  had  the 
requisite  population.  On  another  occasion  I  proposed  that  neither  Kansas, 
nor  any  other  territory,  should  be  admitted  until  it  had  the  requisite  popula 
tion.  Congress  did  not  adopt  any  of  my  propositions  containing  this  general 
rule,  but  did  make  an  exception  of  Kansas.  I  will  stand  by  that  exception. 
Either  Kansas  must  come  in  as  a  free  state,  with  whatever  population  she  may 
have,  or  the  rule  must  be  applied  to  all  the  other  territories  alike.  I  there 
fore  answer  at  once,  that  it  having  been  decided  that  Kansas  has  people 
enough  for  a  slave  state,  I  hold  that  she  has  enough  for  a  free  state.  I  hope 
Mr.  Lincoln  is  satisfied  with  my  answer ;  and  now  I  would  like  to  get  his  an 
swer  to  his  own  interrogatory — whether  or  not  he  will  vote  to  admit  Kansas 
before  she  has  the  requisite  population.  I  want  to  know  whether  he  will 
vote  to  admit  Oregon  before  that  territory  has  the  requisite  population.  Mr. 
Trumbull  will  not,  and  the  same  reason  that  commits  Mr.  Trumbull  against 
the  admission  of  Oregon  commits  him  against  Kansas,  even  if  she  should 
apply  for  admission  as  a  free  state.  If  there  is  any  sincerity,  any  truth  in 
the  argument  of  Mr.  Trumbull  in  the  Senate  against  the  admission  of  Oregon 


THE   CAMPAIGN    OF    1858.  427 

because  she  had  not  93,420  people,  although  her  population  was  larger  than 
that  of  Kansas,  he  stands  pledged  against  the  admission  of  both  Oregon  and 
Kansas  until  they  have  93,420  inhabitants.  I  would  like  Mr.  Lincoln  to  an 
swer  this  question.  I  would  like  him  to  take  his  own  medicine.  If  he  differs 
with  Mr.  Trumbull,  let  him  answer  his  argument  against  the  admission  of 
Oregon,  instead  of  poking  questions  at  me. 

"  The  next  question  propounded  to  me  by  Mr.  Lincoln  is,  Can  the  people  of 
a  territory  in  any  lawful  way,  against  the  wishes  of  any  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits  prior  to  the  formation  of  a  state 
Constitution  ?  I  answer  emphatically,  as  Mr.  Lincoln  has  heard  me  answer 
a  hundred  times  from  every  stump  in  Illinois,  that  in  my  opinion  the  people 
of  a  territory  can,  by  lawful  means,  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits  prior  to 
the  formation  of  a  state  Constitution.  Mr.  Lincoln  knew  that  I  had  answered 
that  question  over  and  over  again.  He  heard  me  argue  the  Nebraska  Bill 
on  that  principle  all  over  the  state  in  1854,  in  1855,  and  in  1856,  and  he  has 
no  excuse  for  pretending  to  be  in  doubt  as  to  my  position  on  that  question. 
It  matters  not  what  way  the  Supreme  Court  may  hereafter  decide  as  to  the 
abstract  question  whether  slavery  may  or  may  not  go  into  a  territory  under 
the  Constitution,  the  people  have  the  lawful  means  to  introduce  it  or  exclude 
it  as  they  please,  for  the-  reason  that  slavery  can  not  exist  a  day  or  an  hour 
anywhere  unless  it  is  supported  by  local  police  regulations.  Those  police 
regulations  can  only  be  established  by  the  local  Legislature,  and  if  the  peo 
ple  are  opposed  to  slavery  they  will  elect  representatives  to  that  body  who 
will,  by  unfriendly  legislation,  effectually  prevent  the  introduction  of  it  into 
their  midst.  If,  on  the  contrary,  they  are  for  it,  their  legislation  will  favor 
its  extension.  Hence,  no  matter  what  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
may  be  on  that  abstract  question,  still  the  right  of  the  people  to  make  a  slave 
territory  or  a  free  territory  is  perfect  and  complete  under  the  Nebraska  Bill. 
I  hope  Mr.  Lincoln  deems  my  answer  satisfactory  on  that  point. 

"  In  this  connection  I  will  notice  the  charge  which  he  has  introduced  in 
relation  to  Mr.  Chase's  amendment.  I  thought  that  I  had  chased  that  amend 
ment  out  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  brain  at  Ottawa ;  but  it  seems  that  it  still  haunts 
his  imagination,  and  he  is  not  yet  satisfied.  I  had  supposed  that  he  would 
be  ashamed  to  press  that  question  further.  He  is  a  lawyer,  and  has  been  a 
member  of  Congress,  and  has  occupied  his  time  and  amused  you  by  telling 
you  about  parliamentary  proceedirgs.  He  ought  to  have  known  better  than 
to  try  to  palm  off  his  miserable  impositions  upon  this  intelligent  audience. 
The  Nebraska  Bill  provided  that  the  legislative  power,  and  authority  of  the 
said  territory,  should  extend  to  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation  consistent 
with  the  organic  act  and  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  It  did  not 
make  any  exception  as  to  slavery,  but  gave  all  the  power  that  it  was  possible 
for  Congress  to  give,  without  violating  the  Constitution,  to  the  territorial 
Legislature,  with  no  exception  or  limitation  on  the  subject  of  slavery  at  all. 
The  language  of  that  bill  which  I  have  quoted  gave  the  full  power  and  the 
full  authority  over  the  subject  of  slavery,  affirmatively  and  negatively,  to 
introduce  it  or  exclude  it  so  far  as  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
would  permit.  What  more  could  Mr.  Chase  give  by  his  amendment  ? 
Nothing.  He  offered  his  amendment  for  the  identical  purpose  for  which  Mr. 
Lincoln  is  using  it.  to  enable  demagogues  in  the  country  to  try  and  deceive 
the  people.  His  amendment  was  to  this  effect.  It  provided  that  the  Leg 
islature  should  have  the  power  to  exclude  slavery ;  and  General  Cass  sug 
gested,  '  Why  not  give  the  power  to  introduce  as  well  as  exclude  ?'  The 
answer  was,  they  have  the  power  already  in  the  bill  to  do  both.  Chase  was 
afraid  his  amendment  would  be  adopted  if  he  put  the  alternative  proposition 
and  so  make  it  fair  both  ways,  but  would  not  yield.  He  offered  it  for  tho 
purpose  of  having  it  rejected.  He  offered  it,  as  he  has  himself  avowed  over 


428  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

and  over  again,  simply  to  make  capital  out  of  it  for  the  stump.  He  expected 
that  it  would  be  capital  for  small  politicians  in  the  country,  and  that  they 
would  make  an  effort  to  deceive  the  people  with  it,  and  he  was  not  mis 
taken,  for  Lincoln  is  carrying  out  the  plan  admirably.  Lincoln  knows  that 
the  Nebraska  Bill,  without  Chase's  amendment,  gave  all  the  power  which 
the  Constitution  would  permit.  Could  Congress  confer  any  more  ?  Could 
Congress  go  beyond  the  Constitution  of  the  country  ?  We  gave  all,  a  full 
grant,  with  no  exception  in  regard  to  slavery  one  way  or  the  other.  We 
left  that  question  as  we  left  all  others,  to  be  decided  by  the  people  for  them 
selves,  just  as  they  pleased.  I  will  not  occupy  my  time  on  this  question.  I 
have  argued  it  before  all  over  Illinois.  I  have  argued  it  in  this  beautiful 
city  of  Freeport ;  I  have  argued  it  in  the  North,  the  South,  the  East,  and 
the  West,  avowing  the  same  sentiments  and  the  same  principles.  I  have 
not  been  afraid  to  avow  my  sentiments  up  here  for  fear  I  would  be  trotted 
down  into  Egypt. 

"  The  third  question  which  Mr.  Lincoln^presented  is,  If  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  shall  decide  that  a  state  of  this  Union  can  not  exclude 
slavery  from  its  own  limits,  will  I  submit  to  it  ?  I  am  amazed  that  Lincoln 
should  ask  such  a  question.  ('  A  school-boy  knows  better.')  Yes,  a  school 
boy  does  know  better.  Mr.  Lincoln's  object  is  to  cast  an  imputation  upon 
the  Supreme  Court.  He  knows  that  there  never  was  but  one  man  in  Amer 
ica,  claiming  any  degree  of  intelligence  or  decency,  who  ever  for  a  moment 
pretended  such  a  thing.  It  is  true  that  the  Washington  Union,  in  an  article 
published  on  the  17th  of  last  November,  did  put  forth  that  doctrine,  and  I 
denounced  the  article  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  in  a  speech  which  Mr.  Lin 
coln  now  pretends  was  against  the  President.  The  Union  had  claimed  that 
slavery  had  a  right  to  go  into  the  free  states,  and  that  any  provision  in  the 
Constitution  or  laws  of  the  free  states  to  the  contrary  were  null  and  void.  I 
denounced  it  in  the  Senate,  as  I  said  before,  and  I  was  the  first  man  who 
did.  Lincoln's  friends,  Trumbull,  and  Seward,  and  Hale,  and  Wilson,  and 
the  whole  Black  Republican  side  of  the  Senate  were  silent.  They  left  it  to 
me  to  denounce  it.  And  what  was  the  reply  made  to  me  on  that  occasion  ? 
Mr.  Toombs,  of  Georgia,  got  up  and  undertook  to  lecture  me  on  the  ground 
that  I  ought  not  to  have  deemed  the  article  worthy  of  notice,  and  ought  not 
to  have  replied  to  it ;  that  there  was  not  one  man,  woman,  or  child  South  of 
the  Potomac,  in  any  slave  state,  who  did  not  repudiate  any  such  pretension. 
Mr.  Lincoln  knows  that  that  reply  was  made  on  the  spot,  and  yet  now  he 
asks  this  question.  He  might  as  well  ask  me,  suppose  Mr.  Lincoln  should 
steal  a  horse,  would  I  sanction  it ;  and  it  would  be  as  genteel  in  me  to  ask 
him,  in  the  event  he  stole  a  horse,  what  ought  to  be  done  with  him.  He 
casts  an  imputation  upon  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  by  sup 
posing  that  they  would  violate  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  I  tell 
him  that  such  a  thing  is  not  possible.  It  would  be  an  act  of  moral  treason 
that  no  man  on  the  bench  could  ever  descend  to.  Mr.  Lincoln  himself 
would  never,  in  his  partizan  feelings,  so  far  forget  what  was  right  as  to  be 
guilty  of  such  an  act. 

"  The  fourth  question  of  Mr.  Lincoln  is,  Are  you  in  favor  of  acquiring  ad 
ditional  territory  in  disregard  as  to  how  such  acquisition  may  affect  the  Union 
on  the  slavery  question  ?  This  question  is  very  ingeniously  and  cunningly 
put.  The  Black  Eepublican  creed  lays  it  down  expressly,  that  under  no  cir 
cumstances  shall  we  acquire  any  more  territory  unless  slavery  is  first  pro 
hibited  in  the  country.  1  ask  Mr.  Lincoln  whether  ho  is  in  favor  of  that 
proposition.  Are  you  (addressing  Mr.  Lincoln)  opposed  to  the  acquisition  of 
any  more  territory,  under  any  circumstances,  unless  slavery  is  prohibited  in 
it  ?  That  he  does  not  like  to  answer.  When  I  ask  him  whether  he  stands 
up  to  that  article  in  the  platform  of  his  party,  he  turns,  Yankee-fashion,  and 


THE   CAMPAIGN    OF    1858.  429 

without  answering  it,  asks  me  whether  I  am  in  favor  of  acquiring  territory 
without  regard  to  how  it  may  affect  the  Union  on  the  slavery  question.  I 
answer  that  whenever  it  becomes  necessary,  in  our  growth  and  progress,  to 
acquire  more  territory,  that  I  am  in  favor  of  it,  without  reference  to  the  ques 
tion  of  slavery,  and  when  we  have  acquired  it,  I  will  leave  the  people  free 
to  do  as  they  please,  either  to  make  it  slave  or  free  territory,  as  they  prefer. 

This  was  the  origin  and  history  of  the  famous  questions  put 
to  Mr.  Douglas  at  Freeport,  and  of  his  reply.  The  answers 
were  not  exactly  what  the  allies  desired.  They  would  have 
preferred  that  he  should  repudiate  popular  sovereignty,  be 
cause  they  had  southern  authority  and  his  own  entire  record  to 
produce  against  him.  The  fidelity  of  Mr.  Douglas  to  his  own 
and  oft-repeated  doctrines — to  the  doctrines  he  had  proclaimed 
in  every  county  in  the  state  during  1856,  was  looked  upon  by 
the  allies  as  unpardonable.  The  scheme  to  entrap  him  had  failed. 
His  reply  to  Lincoln  had  a  startling  effect  upon  that  gentle 
man.  Douglas  had  refused  to  bid  for  the  Danite  vote  by  re 
pudiating  his  own  principles.  Lincoln's  half-hour  rejoinder 
was  a  failure.  He  had  expected  a  different  answer,  and  had 
evidently  intended  in  that  half  hour  to  expose  Douglas'  aban 
donment  of  popular  sovereignty,  and  perhaps  to  quote  upon 
him  Mr.  ORB'S  speech,  Mr.  Buchanan's  letter,  and  a  long  list 
of  other  Democratic  authorities. 

Immediately  the  Republican  papers  of  the  state  took  up  the 
matter :  they  were  shocked  that  Democrats  could  support  a 
man  who  did  not  believe  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act  was  a 
purely  pro-slavery  measure !  They  read  Douglas  out  of  the 
Democratic  party  ! 

The  Washington  Union  took  up  the  Republican  cry,  that 
Douglas  had  betrayed  the  Democratic  party  at  Freeport,  and 
the  cry  was  continued  from  mouth  to  mouth,  until,  some  time 
in  the  dog-days  of  1859,  it  was  heard  for  the  last  time  in  very 
feeble  echoes,  somewhere  in  the  remote  neighborhood  of  Grass 
Valley,  California. 

On  the  23d  of  February,  1859,  Mr.  Douglas,  in  reply  to  a 
speech  made  by  the  Honorable  A.  G.  Brown,  of  Mississippi,  re 
peated  the  opinions  expressed  by  him  in  his  speeches  in  Illinois 
during  1856,  7,  and  8,  and  in  Congress  from  the  time  of 
the  compromise  measures  of  1850.  That  speech  has  been 
widely  circulated.  Attached  to  the  pamphlet  edition  is  an 
appendix,  making  twenty-two  pages  of  printed  matter,  in 


430  LIFE  OF  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

which  are  grouped  extracts  from  reports  made  by  himself,  and 
from  speeches  made  by  the  Hon.  W.  A.  Richardson,  of  Illinois, 
Hon.  Louis  Cass,  Hon.  Isaac  Toucey,  Hon.  Howell  Cobb,  Hon. 
John  C.  Breckinridge,  Hon.  J.  L.  Orr,  Hon.  A.  H.  Stephens, 
Hon.  J.  P.  Benjamin,  Hon.  J.  M.  Mason,  Hon.  J.  A.  Bayard, 
Hon.  G.  E.  Badger,  Hon.  John  Pettit,  Hon.  A.  P.  Butler,  Hon. 
R.  M.  T.  Hunter,  Hon.  Robert  Toombs,  Hon.  J.  A.  Smith,  Hon. 
A.  C.  Dodge,  Hon.  T.  F.  Bowie,  Hon.  G.  W.  Jones,  Hon.  J.  N. 
Elliott,  Hon.  J.  S.  Caskie,  Hon.  A.  G.  Brown,  Hon.  W.  C.  Daw- 
son,  Hon.  T.  L.  Clingman,  Hon.  Z.  Kid  well,  Hon.  C.  J.  Faulk 
ner,  Hon.  J.  H.  Lumpkin,  Hon.  A.  G.  Talbott,  Hon.  Moses 
Norris,  Hon.  J.  B.  Weller,  Hon.  W.  H.  English,  Hon.  M. 
Macdonald,  Hon.  J.  R.  Thomson,  Hon.  R.  Brodhead,  Hon.  W. 
Bigler,  Hon.  L.  O'B.  Branch,  and  Hon.  Harry  Hibbard  ;  also  from 
the  Cincinnati  platform,  and  the  letter  of  Mr.  Buchanan  accept 
ing  the  nomination — all  showing  the  interpretation  placed 
upon  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act  by  these  gentlemen  at  the 
time  of  its  passage  and  subsequently  to  its  going  into  effect. 
That  speech  and  appendix  present  a  compendium  of  authority 
upon  the  proper  construction  to  be  placed  upon  the  language 
of  the  act.  Mr.  Douglas  demonstrates  in  that  speech  that  the 
"  unsound  doctrines"  of  his  Freeport  address  were  not  new, 
but  were  of  very  ancient  date,  and  thoroughly  understood  by 
the  Senate  and  the  country. 

The  next  joint  debate  took  place  at  Jonesboro,  in  Egypt, 
on  the  15th  of  September;  the  fourth  at  Charleston,  in  the 
seventh  district,  on  the  18th.  The  fifth  took  place  at  Gales- 
burg,  in  Knox  county — strongly  abolition — on  October  7th  ; 
the  sixth  at  Quincy,  on  the  13th,  and  the  last  at  Alton,  on 
the  15th. 

Between  these  periods  both  candidates  were  busily  engaged. 
Lyman  Trumbull  was  also  at  work.  His  speeches  were  neither 
argumentative  nor  poetical ;  they  were  not  devoted  to  the  ad 
vocacy  of  Lincoln  or  of  Republicanism  ;  they  were  fierce,  ma 
licious,  vituperative,  and  scandalous  denunciations  of  Judge 
Douglas  personally.  Trumbull  neither  served  Lincoln  nor 
damaged  Douglas.  He  descended  to  the  level  of  Lieb,  Grund, 
and  Carpenter ;  and  at  this  day  of  intelligence  the  people  of 
Illinois  accept  nothing  on  faith  from  men  of  that  grade. 

In  the  meantime  the  Republican  papers  kept  constantly  be- 


THE   CAMPAIGN    OF    1858.  431 

fore  the   people  the  famous  declaration  of  the  Washington 
Union  : 

"  Upon  the  issue  of  Douglas  or  Lincoln,  Lincoln  or  Douglas,  we  confess  to 
a  serene  indifference." 

Chase,  of  Ohio,  Colfax,  of  Indiana,  Blair,  of  Missouri,  H.  F. 
Douglas  (negro),  and  other  Republican  orators,  were  in  Illi 
nois  urging  their  friends  to  "  kill  Douglas"  now,  or  he  would 
be  President  in  1860. 

The  Danites  were  also  busy.  They  had  candidates  for  Con 
gress  in  all  the  districts.  They  talked  of  Judge  Breese  and 
Judge  Skinner  for  the  Senate.  They  had  candidates  for  the 
Legislature  in  every  district,  except  those  which  were  over 
whelmingly  Democratic,  and  in  these  districts  they  united 
with  the  Republicans.  In  the  close  districts  they  were  par 
ticularly  active,  and,  to  their  own  eternal  shame,  succeeded  in 
electing  four  Republicans  to  the  Legislature,  where  by  a 
united  vote  Democrats  could  have  been  chosen.  It  is  but  just, 
however,  to  say,  that  the  major  portion  of  these  men  have 
since  regretted  their  conduct,  and  are  now  warm  friends  and 
supporters  of  the  Democratic  organization. 

The  Washington  Union  throughout  all  this  season  continued 
its  wholesale  denunciation  of  Mr.  Douglas.  On  the  3d  of 
September  it  charged  Douglas  with  degrading  the  office  of 
senator  by  addressing  the  people  of  his  own  state  in  defense 
of  his  own  official  conduct,  and  in  opposition  to  Republicanism. 
The  Danites  at  an  early  day  announced  a  "  tremendous  mass 
meeting,"  to  come  off  at  the  state  capital  on  September  7th  ; 
and  handbills,  printed  in  a  variety  of  colors,  announced  that  the 
"  Hon.  John  C.  Breckinridge,  Vice-President  of  the  United 
States,  would  address  the  meeting,"  and  denounce  the  Democ 
racy  of  Illinois.  The  mass  meeting  came  off,  but  beyond  a  few 
hundred  office-holders  and  expectants,  no  one  attended,  not 
even  to  hear  Mr.  Breckinridge  upon  that  subject.  The  use 
of  Mr.  Breckinridge's  name  by  these  disorganizes  was  wholly 
unauthorized.  In  October  following  he  timidly  published  a 
letter  declaring  his  earnest  hope  that  the  Democracy  of  Illinois 
would  sustain  their  regular  nominees,  including  Mr.  Doug 
las.  This  letter  of  Mr.  Breckinridge,  as  well  as  an  eloquent 
and  stirring  one  from  Governor  Wise,  were  both  written  and 
published  long  after  the  Freeport  speech,  the  doctrines  of 


432  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

which  have  been  represented  'since  then  as  a  justification  for  an 
unmanly  and  vindictive  assault  upon  Mr.  Douglas.  All  honor 
and  credit  to  the  illustrious  Virginian  who,  rising  above  the 
petty  instigations  of  rivalry,  had  the  courage  and  independence 
to  declare  that  he  did  not  desire  the  election  of  Lincoln,  and 
did  desire  the  election  of  Douglas,  the  chosen  leader  of  the 
Illinois  Democracy.  The  Hon.  James  B.  Clay,  of  Kentucky, 
also  sent  to  his  Democratic  brethren  of  Illinois  words  of  ap 
proval  and  of  encouragement.  The  Hon.  A.  H.  Stephens,  of 
Georgia,  was  in  Chicago  during  the  summer,  and  an  attempt 
was  made  by  the  Danites  to  use  his  name  in  approval  of  their 
proceedings.  This,  however,  was  unjust  to  that  gentleman : 
he  never,  by  word  or  deed,  approved  the  election  of  the  Re 
publican  candidates. 

The  labors  of  the  campaign  were  excessive.  The  weather 
up  to  the  tenth  of  October  was  oppressively  warm.  The  most 
of  Judge  Douglas'  appointments  after  that  date  were  in  north 
ern  Illinois.  Then  the  weather  changed;  a  cold  blustering 
wind,  often  accompanied  with  rain,  continued  until  the  close. 
At  Geneseo  and  Rock  Island,  where  Mr.  Douglas  spoke  on  the 
Thursday  and  Friday  preceding  the  election,  it  rained  hard  all 
day,  yet  he  was  listened  to  by  thousands,  many  of  whom  had 
come  hundreds  of  miles  to  hear  him.  On  Saturday  night, 
October  31,  he  reached  Chicago  pretty  well  fatigued,  and 
voice  almost  exhausted  from  speaking  so  often  in  the  open 
air,  and  exposed  to  the  heavy  rain.  Sunday  was  a  day  of  re 
pose,  and  one  he  much  needed.  On  Monday  night  he  was 
again  called  out  to  address  a  mass  meeting  in  Chicago,  but  a 
rain  storm  prevented  his  saying  much. 

Tuesday,  at  an  early  hour,  the  city  was  alive.  Throughout 
the  state  an  unusual  excitement  prevailed.  In  Chicago  a  rain 
continued  at  intervals  all  day.  It  is  unnecessary  to  state  here 
that  the  Republicans  resorted  to  every  possible  means  in  the 
wray  of  secret  circulars  to  injure  Mr.  Douglas  by  representing 
him  as  being  a  Know-Nothing,  and  a  Republican.  All  such 
attempts  failed.  The  fate  of  Lincoln  was  sealed  by  the  discus 
sion  at  Ottawa,  and  nothing  but  a  special  interposition  of  Pro 
vidence  could  have  elected  a  Legislature  favorable  to  his  elec 
tion  to  the  Senate. 


THE   CAMPAIGN   OF    1858.  433 

It  only  remains  to  add  the  result  of  the  election : 

Upon  the  state  ticket  the  vote  was — 

Fondey,  Democrat 121,609 

French         "        122,413 

Average  democratic  vote 122,011 

Dougherty,  Danite -. 5,071 

Total  democratic  vote 127,082 

Miller,  Republican 125,430 

Bateman      "         124,556 

Average  republican  vote 124,993 

Democratic  majority  in  the  state 2,089 

The  Danite  organs  in  the  state,  after  the  election,  apologized 
and  accounted  for  the  smallness  of  their  vote,  by  saying  that 
the  great  bulk  of  their  party,  failing  to  see  any  other  mode  of 
"  killing  Douglas,"  had  voted  the  Republican  ticket  direct. 

The  Legislature,  including  those  holding  over,  stood  thus  : 

Senate.  ( House.  Totals. 

Democrats 14 40 54 

Republicans 11 35 46 

Danites 00.  . , 00 00 

Democratic  majority  on  joint  ballot  8. 

This  was  the  result  of  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  politi 
cal  contests  ever  had  in  any  state  of  the  Union.  It  was  a 
glorious  personal  as  well  as  political  triumph  on  the  part  of 
Mr.  Douglas.  It  demonstrated  the  unpurchasable  integrity  of 
the  Democracy  of  Illinois.  It  showed  that  they  were  without 
fear,  and  were  above  price.  It  showed  also,  and  the  fact  was 
creditable  to  the  intelligence  of  the  American  people,  that  no 
Federal  authority  can  be  successfully  exercised  to  defeat  the 
will  and  power  of  a  free  people. 

The  effort  to  defeat  Mr.  Douglas  did  not  end  with  the  de 
cision  of  the  people  in  November.  It  was  at  once  noised 
about  that  among  the  Democratic  senators  holding  over,  were 
some  who  were  under  no  obligation  to  vote  for  Mr.  Douglas, 
and  who  were  disposed  to  stand  by  the  administration.  The 
Legislature  did  not  meet  until  January.  The  rumours  con 
cerning  the  fidelity  of  certain  state  senators  were  taken  up 
and  vouched  for  by  Republican  newspapers,  and  possibly  found 
believers  elsewhere.  One  federal  officer  in  Illinois  boasted 
that  he  held  blank  commissions  to  important  federal  offices,  in. 
which  he  was  authorized  to  insert  the  names  of  such  Demo- 

T 


434  LIFE  OF  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

cratic  senators  as  would  refuse  to  vote  for  Douglas.  This 
boast  was  too  degrading  to  the  administration  to  find  any 
Democrat  in  Illinois  who  would  believe  it.  The  effect,  how 
ever,  was  soon  felt.  The  senators  holding  over  were  sterling 
Democrats ;  they  did  not  relish  the  free  use  of  their  names  by 
the  Danite  chieftains,  and  they  took  occassion  to  express  their 
sentiments  very  freely  and  decidedly  upon  the  matter.  It  was 
stated  that,  during  the  interval  between  the  election  and  the 
meeting  of  the  Legislature,  a  politician  of  a  neighboring 
state,  who  had  been  prominent  as  an  outside  friend  and  sup 
porter  of  the  Danites,  found  occasion  to  cross  that  part  of 
Illinois  represented  in  the  state  Senate  by  Captain  Coffee,  one 
of  the  best  and  honestest  Democrats  in  the  west.  The  dis 
tinguished  stranger  stopped  at  a  town  in  the  vicinity  of  Coffee's 
residence  and  inquired  particularly  after  his  health.  Coffee 
happened  to  be  away  from  home  at  the  time,  and  when  he 
returned  the  landlord  told  him  of  the  visit  made  by  the  "  em 
inent  statesman"  from  another  state,  and  of  his  particular 
inquiries  after  Captain  Coffee's  health.  The  answer  was  as  em 
phatic  as  its  purport  was  unmistakable :  he  said,  "When 

calls  here  on  his  way  back,  you  tell  him  for  me,  that  I  am  a 
Democrat,  and  if  he  dare  to  ask  me  to  vote  against  Douglas 
he  may  be  sure  that  either  he  or  I  will  be  the  worst  whipped 
man  that  ever  saw  the  state  of  Illinois."  Captain  Coffee's 
fidelity  was  never  doubted  by  any  Democrat,  indeed  his  deter 
mination  to  vote  for  Douglas  was  soon  publicly  announced, 
and  the  distinguished  gentleman  has  never  returned  that  way 
since  to  hear  any  additional  particulars  touching  Captain  Cof 
fee's  health,  which  it  is  hoped  may  never  be  anything  else  than 
in  a  high  state  of  preservation. 

According  to  custom  the  Democratic  members  of  the  Legis 
lature  met  in  caucus  the  night  before  the  organization. 
Douglas  was  nominated  by  acclamation,  and  three  days  there 
after  was,  in  joint  meeting,  re-elected  United  States  senator. 


DOMESTIC   AFFAIRS.  435 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

DOMESTIC   AFFAIRS. 

ME.  DOUGLAS  was  first  married  on  the  7th  of  April,  1847,  in 
Rockingham  county,  North  Carolina,  to  Miss  MAETHA  DENNY 
MARTIN,  only  daughter  of  Col.  Robert  Martin,  of  that  county. 
With  his  bride  he  returned  to  the  State  of  Illinois,  whose 
senator  he  had  become  but  a  month  previously.  Everywhere 
during  his  tour  he  was  greeted  with  affection  by  his  constitu 
ents,  with  all  the  attention  that  friendship  could  suggest,  and 
all  the  respect  which  the  gentleness  and  amiability  of  his  ac 
complished  bride  could  not  fail  to  inspire.  Her  gentleness, 
and  her  strong  native  good  judgment  were  of  great  service  to 
him  in  many  a  season  of  perplexing  and  troublesome  excite 
ment.  She  made  home  an  abiding  place  of  peace  and  tran- 
quility,  where  all  the  associations  were  of  a  refined  and  Chris 
tian  character.  In  extending  hospitality  to  the  multitudes 
who  thronged  her  husband's  mansion,  she  was  judicious  and 
yet  munificent,  She  won  the  respect  of  all  his  friends,  and 
divided  with  him  their  unbounded  admiration.  After  a  happy 
life  of  nearly  six  years  with  a  husband  whose  interest  was 
the  object  of  her  wordly  life,  she  died  at  his  residence  in 
Washington  City,  on  the  19th  of  January,  1853,  leaving  three 
children,  two  boys,  and  one  girl,  the  latter  an  infant,  who  sur 
vived  its  mother  but  a  few  months.  The  two  boys  are  now 
bright,  active,  intelligent  youths,  and  reside  with  their  father. 

In  November,  1856,  Mr.  Douglas  was  married  at  Washing 
ton  City  to  Miss  ADELE  CUTTS,  the  beautiful  and  accom 
plished  daughter  of  Hon.  James  Madison  Cutts,  long  a  resi 
dent  of  that  city. 

DOUGLAS'    PLANTATION   AND   SLAVES. 

In  speaking  of  the  domestic  affairs  of  Judge  Douglas,  it 
may  not  be  out  of  place  to  introduce  and  dispose  of  a  matter 
which  on  frequent  occasions  has  served  his  political  and  per 
sonal  enemies  with  a  pretext  for  the  most  unscrupulous  abuse. 
That  matter  is  his  "  ownership  of  slaves." 

In  1847,  on  the  day  after  his   marriage,   Colonel  Martin 


436  LIFE   OP   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

placed  in  Mr.  Douglas'  hands  a  sealed  package  of  papers. 
Upon  an  examination  of  these  papers  Mr.  Douglas  found 
among  them  a  deed  of  certain  plantations,  including  the  ser 
vants  upon  them,  in  the  State  of  Mississippi,  which  deed 
vested  the  title  to  both  land  and  servants  in  him  absolutely. 
He  at  once,  without  one  moment's  hesitation,  sought  Colonel 
Martin  and  returned  him  the  deed,  stating  that  while  he  was 
no  abolitionist,  and  had  no  sympathy  with  them  in  their  wild 
schemes  and  ultra  views  respecting  slavery,  yet  he  was  a 
northern  man  by  birth,  education  and  residence,  and  was  to 
tally  ignorant  of  that  description  of  property,  and  as  ignorant 
of  the  manner  and  rules  by  which  it  should  be  governed,  and 
wras  therefore  wholly  incompetent  to  take  charge  of  it  and  per 
form  his  duty  towards  it  properly,  particularly  at  a  distance  01 
fifteen  hundred  miles  from  where  he  resided,  and  where  he 
should  continue  to  reside  at  all  times  with  the  people  to  whom 
he  owed  so  much.  He  said  that  he  preferred  Colonel  Martin 
should  retain  the  property,  at  least  during  his  lifetime,  and  if 
in  the  meantime  no  disposition  was  made  of  it,  he  could  then 
by  wUl  leave  directions  as  to  the  manner  in  which  he  desired 
it  disposed  of. 

Colonel  Martin  died  on  the  25th  of  May,  1848,  leaving  a 
will  in  which  he  provided  for  the  disposal  of  his  entire  estate. 
In  this  will  he  recited  the  fact  that  he  had  a  year  previously 
offered  the  plantations  in  Mississippi,  with  the  slaves  upon  them, 
to  his  son-in-law,  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  who  had  declined  to  re 
ceive  them.  He  then  declared  substantially,  that  in  the  event 
of  the  death  of  his  daughter,  Martha  D.  Douglas,  leaving  sur 
viving  children,  it  was  his  wish  and  desire  that  the  slaves  upon 
those  Mississippi  plantations  should  remain  and  continue  the 
property  of  those  children ;  and  he  willed  this  in  the  firm 
belief  that  the  negroes  would  be  better  off  and  better  cared 
for  as  slaves  in  the  family  in  which  they  had  been  born  and 
raised  than  if  set  at  liberty  and  sent  to  the  free  states  ;  but 
he  provided,  that  in  the  event  of  his  said  daughter  dying,  leav 
ing  no  surviving  children,  the  negroes  should  be  sent  to  the 
coast  of  Africa  and  should  be  supported  there  one  year,  at 
the  expense  of  his  estate,  and  then  be  declared  free. 

This  is  the  entire  history  of  the  manner  in  which  Mr.  Doug 
las  became  "  the  owner  of  plantations  stocked  with  slaves  ;" 
and  of  the  manner  and  the  reasons  by  which  the  ownership  of 


DOMESTIC   AFPAIKS.  437 

the  slaves  was  continued  by  their  grandfather  to  the  children, 
after  Mr.  Douglas,  for  the  reasons  given,  had  declined  the  ab 
solute  gift  of  the  entire  property. 

It  has  been  thought  proper  and  just  toward  Mr.  Douglas 
that  this  matter  should  be  stated  clearly  and  distinctly.  At 
the  time  that  Col.  Martin  made  him  the  valuable  present,  Mr. 
Douglas  was  not  blessed  with  an  over  abundance  of  treasure. 
As  a  pecuniary  gift  this  was  of  great  value,  and  in  his  circum 
stances  would,  if  converted  into  money,  have  enabled  him,  by 
judicious  investments  in  Chicago  and  elsewhere  in  Illinois,  to 
have  laid  the  foundation  for  a  princely  fortune.  The  gift  was 
clogged  with  no  conditions.  He  was  at  liberty  to  convert 
plantations  and  slaves  into  cash  at  any  moment.  How  many 
of  those  who  have  denounced  him  as  a  slaveholder,  as  being 
the  "  owner  of  human  beings,"  and  the  "  proprietor  of  human 
chattels,"  would  have  resisted  the  offer  that  he  declined,  is  a 
question  which  the  observer  of  the  general  hollowness  of  abo 
lition  pretensions  will  have  no  difficulty  in  answering. 

A  senator  from  Ohio,  with  a  want  of  taste,  a  want  of  a  be  - 
coining  sense  of  the  proprieties  of  life,  shortly  after  the  death 
of  Mrs.  Douglas,  was  shameless  enough  to  introduce  the  mat 
ter  into  a  debate  in  the  Senate.  The  remarks  made  by  Mr. 
Wade  on  that  occasion  elicited  the  following  feeling,  touch 
ing,  manly  reply  from  Mr.  Douglas  : 

u  Mr.  President,  the  senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Wade]  has 
invaded  the  circle  of  my  private  relations  in  search  of  materials 
for  the  impeachment  of  my  official  action.  He  has  alluded  to 
certain  southern  interests  which  he  insinuates  that  I  possess, 
and  remarked,  that  where  the  treasure  is  there  the  heart  is 
also.  So  long  as  the  statement  that  I  was  one  of  the  largest 
slaveholders  in  America  was  confined  to  the  abolition  news 
papers  and  stump  orators  I  treated  it  with  silent  contempt. 
I  would  gladly  do  so  on  this  occasion,  were  it  not  for  the  fact 
that  the  reference  is  made  in  my  presence  by  a  senator  for  the 
purpose  of  imputing  to  me  a  mercenary  motive  for  my  official 
conduct.  Under  these  circumstances,  silence  on  my  part  in 
regard  to  the  fact  might  be  construed  into  a  confession  of  guilt 
in  reference  to  the  impeachment  of  motive.  I  therefore  say 
to  the  senator  that  his  insinuation  is  false,  and  he  knows  it  to 
be  false,  if  he  has  ever  searched  the  records  or  has  any  reliable 
information  upon  the  subject.  I  am  not  the  owner  of  a  slave, 


438  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN   A,    DOUGLAS. 

and  never  have  been,  nor  have  I  ever  received  and  appropri 
ated  to  my  own  use  one  dollar  earned  by  slave  labor.  It  is 
true  that  I  once  had  tendered  to  me,  under  circumstances 
grateful  to  my  feelings,  a  plantation  with  a  large  number  of 
slaves  upon  it,  which  I  declined  to  accept,  not  because  I  had 
any  sympathy  with  abolitionists  or  the  abolition  movement, 
but  for  the  reason  that,  being  a  northern  man  by  birth,  by 
education  and  residence,  and  intending  always  to  remain  such, 
it  was  impossible  for  me  to  know,  understand,  and  provide  for 
the  wants,  comforts  and  happiness  of  those  people.  I  refused 
to  accept  them  because  I  was  unwilling  to  assume  responsibili 
ties  which  I  was  incapable  of  fulfilling.  This  fact  is  referred  to 
in  the  will  of  my  father-in-law  as  a  reason  for  leaving  the  plan 
tation  and  slaves  to  his  only  daughter,  (who  became  the  mother 
of  my  infant  children),  as  her  separate  and  exclusive  estate, 
with  the  request  that  if  she  departed  this  life  without  surviving 
children  the  slaves  should  be  emancipated  and  sent  to  Liberia 
at  the  expense  of  her  estate ;  but  in  the  event  she  should  leave 
surviving  children,  the  slaves  should  descend  to  them,  under 
the  belief,  expressed  in  the  will,  that  they  would  be  happier 
and  better  off  with  the  descendants  of  the  family,  with  whom 
they  had  been  born  and  raised,  than  in  a  distant  land  where 
they  might  find  no  friend  to  care  for  them.  This  brief  state 
ment,  relating  to  private  and  domestic  affairs,  (which  ought  to 
be  permitted  to  remain  private  and  sacred),  has  been  extorted 
and  wrung  from  me  with  extreme  reluctance,  even  in  vindica 
tion  of  the  purity  of  my  motives  in  the  performance  of  a  high 
public  trust.  As  the  truth  compelled  me  to  negative  the  in 
sinuation  so  offensively  made  by  the  senator  from  Ohio,  God 
forbid  that  I  should  be  understood  by  any  one  as  being  willing 
to  cast  from  me  any  responsibility  that  now  does,  or  ever  has 
attached  to  any  member  of  my  family.  So  long  as  life  shall 
last — and  I  shall  cherish  with  religious  veneration  the  memory 
and  virtues  of  the  sainted  mother  of  my  children — so  long  as 
my  heart  shall  be  filled  with  parental  solicitude  for  the  happi 
ness  of  those  motherless  infants,  I  implore  my  enemies,  who  so 
ruthlessly  invade  the  domestic  sanctuary,  to  do  me  the  favor 
to  believe  that  I  have  no  wish,  no  aspiration,  to  be  considered 
purer  or  better  than  she  who  was,  or  they  who  are,  slave 
holders. 

"  Sir,  whenever  my  assailants  shall  refuse  to  accept  a  like 


DOMESTIC   AFFAIRS.  439 

amount  of  this  species  of  property  tendered  to  them,  under 
similar  circumstances,  and  shall  perform  a  domestic  trust  with 
equal  fidelity  and  disinterestedness,  it  will  be  time  enough  for 
them  to  impute  mercenary  motives  to  me  in  the  performance 
of  my  official  duties." 

The  "  ownership  of  slaves"  has  for  several  years  been  one 
of  the  favorite  themes  upon  which  the  lower  and  more  disre 
putable  class  of  the  opposition  have  loved  to  dilate  in  denounc 
ing  Douglas  to  sympathetic  audiences.  Men  of  respectability, 
even  among  the  abolitionists,  have  ceased  to  discourse  of  it. 
But  in  1858,  in  the  memorable  contest  to  which  a  proper  share 
of  this  book  is  devoted,  the  matter  was  revived  and  assumed 
a  new  and  more  intensified  color  by  men  who,  in  uniting  with 
the  abolitionists  to  accomplish  a  common  end,  felt  compelled 
to  resort  to  fabrications  which  no  honorable  Republican  would 
stoop  to  invent. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Illinois  during  that  year  was 
visited  by  several  distinguished  men,  some  of  whom  had  such 
a  profound  regard  for  the  rights  of  the  South  that  they  sought 
the  election  of  Lincoln,  with  his  negro  equality  doctrines,  by 
the  defeat  of  Douglas.  In  the  list  of  statesmen  who  found, 
during  1858,  a  hitherto  unknown  salubriousness  in  the  air  of 
the  northwest,  was  the  Hon.  JOHN  SLIDELL  of  Louisiana,  who 
being,  as  was  well  known,  or  at  least,  as  it  was  supposed,  a 
friend,  confident,  and  adviser  of  the  President  in  the  days  of 
the  Danite  rebellion,  attracted  by  his  venerable  appearance,  as 
well  as  by  the  classic  purity  of  his  language  upon  the  subject 
of  Douglas'  reelection,  the  especial  regard  of  the  entire  Danite 
faction,  and  of  the  more  numerous  and  respectable  party,  the 
Republicans.  It  was  understood — and  when  we  say  under 
stood  we  mean  that  it  was  openly  declared  by  the  President's 
followers  that  Mr.  Slidell  was  the  main  instrument  by  which 
certain  changes  in  the  federal  offices  in  Illinois  had  been  made. 
Dr.  DANIEL  BRAIN ARD,  surgeon  to  the  marine  hospital,  owed 
his  appointment  to  the  united  and  friendly  exertions  of  FRANCIS 
,T.  GRUND,  and  Senator  John  Slidell.  Par  nobile  fratrum ! 
Immediately  after  Mr.  Slidell's  final  leave  of  Chicago  it  was 
stated  upon  the  streets  and  in  public  places  that  Senator 
Douglas  (then  absent  in  other  parts  of  the  state)  was  not  only 
a  slaveholder,  but  one  that  had  no  parallel  in  wickednesss,  even 
in  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin.  "We  will  not  repeat  the  stories  which 


440  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

were  upon  the  lips  of  every  one,  because  they  eventually  took 
shape,  and  appeared  in  a  public  and  formal  allegation.  A  few 
weeks  before  the  election  the  leading  Republican  paper  in  Chi 
cago  charged  that  Mr.  Douglas  spent  in  riotous  living  an  im 
mense  annual  revenue,  derived  from  his  plantations  in  Missis 
sippi  ;  and  not  content  with  thus  profiting  by  his  property  in 
human  beings — his  equals  in  all  human  attributes — he  ne 
glected  them,  placed  them  under  cruel  and  tyrannical  masters, 
who  denied  to  the  poor  slaves  food  enough  to  keep  them  from 
suffering,  and  clothing  enough  to  hide  their  nakedness.  Upon 
this  statement  of  facts,  for  which  the  authority  of  a  distin 
guished  southern  senator  was  claimed,  the  paper  produced  a 
sensation  article,  which  was  extensively  copied  throughout  all 
Illinois  and  the  northwest.  Mr.  Douglas  was  absent  from 
Chicago,  and  did  not  see  the  charge  until  after  the  election. 
Both  Republican  and  administration  orators  made  the  most 
of  the  horrid  condition  of  "  Douglas'  slaves;"  and  the  gentle 
man  to  whom  Mr.  Douglas  had  intrusted  the  care  and  man 
agement  of  his  children's  estate  was  held  up  to  the  people  as  a 
monster  of  wickedness,  and  as  a  demon  in  cruelty. 

The  writer  of  these  pages  heard  the  same  story  repeated  at 
a  Republican  convention  in  Chicago  in  September  or  October, 
1858,  by  one  of  the  persons  nominated  as  a  candidate  for  the 
Legislature.  The  candidate  stated  that  there  could  be  no 
doubt  of  the  facts,  for  they  were  derived  from  a  very  distin 
guished  southern  man  who  had  lately  been  in  Chicago. 

In  the  meantime  the  story  had  reached  New  Orleans,  there 
attracting  much  attention.  The  authors  of  the  story  seemed 
to  have  overlooked  the  possibility  that  there  would  be  ulti 
mately  an  exposure  of  its  want  of  truth.  The  New  Orleans 
Picayune  first  noticed  it,  and  pronounced  it  "  an  election 
canard."  The  Chicago  Press  and  Tribune  at  once  responded 
as  follows : 

"  We  have  only  to  say  that  the  story  came  to  us  from  a  per 
sonal  friend  of  Mr.  Slidell — a  gentleman  of  character  and  influ 
ence  in  this  city — and  he  assured  us  that  he  had  the  statement 
from  Slidell  himself,  during  his  visit  to  Chicago,  while  the  late 
canvass  was  going  on.  His  name  is  at  the  service  of  any  one 
authorized  to  demand  it." 

The  Democratic  paper  at  Chicago  at  once  demanded  the 
name  of  the  "  gentleman  of  character"  who  had  made  the 


DOMESTIC   AFFAIKS.  441 

statement.  Upon  the  streets  the  name  was  publicly  men 
tioned,  but  it  had  not  been  given  up  by  the  Press  and  Tribune. 
At  last  it  was  charged  that  Dr.  DANIEL  BKAINAKD,  a  federal 
office-holder,  was  the  man. 

On  the  18^  of  December  Mr.  Slidell  published  in  the 
Washington  Union  a  denial  of  having  ever  told  Dr.  Brainard 
or  any  one  else  such  a  story.  He  said  : 

I  am  constrained  to  believe  either  that  Dr.  Brainard  did  not  make  the 
statement  attributed  to  him  by  the  Chicago  Press  and  Tribune,  or  that  he  has 
been  guilty  of  a  deliberate  and  malicious  falsehood.  I  have  no  recollection 
of  ever  having  spoken  of  Mr.  Douglas'  slaves ;  it  is  possible  that  I  may  have 
been  asked  if  he  had  any  property  of  that  description.  If  so,  I  could  only 
have  answered  that  they  were  employed  in  cotton-planting  on  the  Mississippi 
river,  and  were  in  possession  of  an  old  and  valued  friend,  James  A.  McHat- 
ton,  than  whom  a  more  honorable  man  or  better  master  cannot  be  found  in 
Louisiana." 

On  the  23d  of  December  Dr.  Brainard  addressed  a  note  to 
the  editors  of  the  Press  and  Tribune^  denying  having  ever 
made  the  statements  imputed  to  him.  In  the  issue  of  that 
paper  of  December  24  the  editors  lifted  the  veil  and  exposed 
the  whole  fabrication.  That  paper  said : 

"We  have  on  two  occasions  promised  that,  when  called  upon  by  one  au 
thorized  to  ask  the  name  of  the  gentleman  who  related  to  us,  on  the  author 
ity  of  Mr.  John  Slidell,  the  story  of  the  ill-treatment  of  Mr.  Douglas'  slaves, 
we  would  give  it  to  the  public.  Mr.  Slidell  in  his  card  above  makes  no  de 
mand  of  the  kind ;  but  as  he  denounces  as  a  falsehood  the  story  itself,  we 
are  impelled  to  make  the  following  statement : 

"  In  July  last,  about  the  time  of  Mr.  Slidell's  visit  to  Chicago,  one  of  the 
editors  of  this  paper  was  informed  by  Dr.  Daniel  Brainard,  Professor  of  Sur 
gery  in  the  Rush  Medical  College,  in  a  conversation  invited  by  the  doctor 
himself,  in  his  own  office,  that  Mr.  Douglas'  slaves  in  the  South  were  '  the 
subjects  of  inhuman  and  disgraceful  treatment — that  they  were  hired  out  to 
a  factor  at  fifteen  dollars  per  annum  each — that  he,  in  turn,  hired  them  out 
to  others  in  lots,  and  that  they  were  ill-fed,  over-worked,  and  in  every  way 
so  badly  treated  that  they  were  spoken  of  in  the  neighborhood  where  they 
are  held  as  a  disgrace  to  all  slaveholders  and  the  system  they  support.'  The 
authority  given  for  these  alleged  facts,  by  Dr.  Brainard,  was  the  Hon.  John 
Slidell,  of  Louisiana, 

#  #  *  *  *  * 

"  At  that  time,  Dr.  Brainard  suggested  that  the  case  as  stated  was  a  proper 
one  for  newspaper  comment ;  and  he  urged  that  Mr.  Douglas  should  be  de 
nounced  in  the  Press  and  Tribune  for  his  inhumanity.  Just  before  election, 
on  the  authority  above  stated,  we  did  comment  upon  Mr.  Douglas'  share  in 
this  matter  with  considerable  severity.  Out  of  the  article  in  which  he  was 
rebuked  this  controversy  has  grown. 

"  We  had  no  doubt  at  the  time  this  conversation  took  place,  and  have  no 
doubt  now,  that  Dr.  Braiuard  was  honest  and  truthful  in  his  relation.  We 

T2 


442  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

believe  him  to  be  a  gentleman,  at  least  the  equal  of  John  Slidell  in  ability 
and  veracity.  If  we  are  mistaken  in  our  recollection,  that  he  had  the  par 
ticulars  recited  from  Mr.  Slidell  himself,  he  will  no  doubt  inform  us  and  Mr. 
Slidell  from  whom  he  had  them,  and  we  shall  then  be  one  step  nearer  the 
author  of  a  tale,  which,  according  to  Mr.  Slidell's  latest  testimony,  is  false." 

On  December  28th  Brainard  published  another  letter,  in 
which  he  admitted  that  he  had  had  conversations  with  the 
editors  of  the  Republican  paper  about  the  hardships,  etc.,  of 
"Douglas'  slaves,"  but  denied  having  given  Mr.  Slidell  as  an 
authority.  There  the  matter  ended.  The  story  failed  to  ac 
complish  its  original  purpose,  viz.,  to  defeat  Douglas'  election. 
It  resulted  in  obtaining  Mr.  Slidell's  testimony  that  the  slaves 
were  in  the  possession  of  a  gentleman  "  than  whom  a  more 
honorable  man  or  better  master  cannot  be  found  in  Louisiana." 
It  also  resulted  in  a  question  of  veracity  between  two  leaders 
of  Douglas'  active  opponents — the  Republican  editor,  and  Dr. 
Brainard,  a  federal  office-holder.  Upon  the  subject  there  never 
has  been  and  is  now  but  one  opinion  in  Chicago.  Hundreds 
had  heard  the  story  as  published  by  the  Republican  paper,  and 
until  Mr.  Slidell's  letter  of  denial  no  one  had  ever  doubted 
that  he  had  authorized  it.  This  having  been  the  most  violent, 
will  possibly  be  the  last  paroxysm  of  abolition  regard  for  the 
moral  and  physical  condition  of  "  Douglas'  plantation  of  human 
chattels."  The  total  failure  of  the  attempt  to  injure  Mr. 
Douglas  before  his  constituents  by  this  malicious  fabrication 
was  but  a  sorry  return  for  the  self-abasement  committed  by 
those  who  participated  in  repeating  the  slander.  Dr.  Brainard 
still  holds  federal  office  in  Chicago.  He  has  never  given  up 
the  name  of  his  authority,  and  the  point  whether  he  did  not 
furnish  Mr.  Slidell's  name  in  the  first  instance  is  involved  in  a 
question  of  veracity  between  him  and  the  Republican  editor. 
The  public  have  never  doubted  on  which  side  was  the  truth. 

Mr.  Douglas  is  the  owner  of  a  very  large  landed  estate  in 
Illinois.  His  grounds  at  "  Cottage  Grove,"  near  the  southern 
limits  of  Chicago,  are  extensive  and  very  valuable.  In  1 856 
he  deeded  ten  acres  of  this  valuable  land — worth  possibly  six 
thousand  dollars  an  acre — to  the  Trustees  of  the  Chicago  Uni 
versity,  an  institution  organized  under  the  auspices  and  patron 
age  of  the  Baptist  denomination.  Upon  this  land  thus  donated 
has  already  been  erected  a  portion  of  the  University  buildings, 
and  already  a  large  class  of  students,  under  the  direction  of  an 


VAEIOUS   MATTEES.  443 

accomplished  faculty,  are  receiving  instruction.  The  corner 
stone  of  the  University  was  laid  with  appropriate  honors  on 
the  4th  of  July,  1856,  and  the  ceremonies  were  attended  by 
an  immense  concourse  of  people. 

In  1856  Mr.  Douglas  disposed  of  one  hundred  acres  of  land 
on  the  western  limits  of  Chicago,  for  the  round  sum  of 
$100,000.  His  contributions  that  year  in  aid  of  the  election 
of  Mr.  Buchanan,  particularly  to  aid  the  Democracy  in  carry 
ing  Pennsylvania,  were  liberal  in  the  extreme.  In  Illinois  he 
was  present  in  person ;  he  was  aided  by  Richardson,  Harris, 
McClernand,  Morris,  Marshall,  Shaw,  Smith,  Logan  and  a  host 
of  Democrats ;  and  though  Illinois,  unlike  Pennsylvania,  had 
no  candidate  on  the  national  ticket,  still  when  called  upon  by 
Douglas  and  his  friends,  gave  to  the  son  of  Pennsylvania  a  free, 
unbought,  and  generous  support — a  support  that  no  expendi 
ture  of  money  could  have  obtained — a  support  given  volunta 
rily  by  intelligent  freemen  to  the  candidates  of  their  party, 
pledged  to  sustain  the  cherished  principles  of  the  Democratic 
platform. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

VAEIOUS   MATTEES. 

IN  the  spring  of  1853  Mr.  Douglas  visited  Europe,  and  spent 
several  months  in  personal  observation  of  the  practical  work 
ings  of  the  various  systems  of  government.  He  stayed  a  con 
siderable  time  in  England,  and  though  he  had  the  pleasure  and 
honor  of  being  presented  to  several  of  the  monarchs  of  Europe, 
it  was  done  at  no  sacrifice  of  personal  independence  or  yield 
ing  of  American  principle. 

THE  AMEEICAIST  COSTUME. 

He  was  presented  to  the  Emperor  of  Russia,  and  was  not 
presented  to  the  Queen  of  England.  The  circumstances  at 
tending  his  success  in  the  one  case,  and  his  failure  in  the  other, 
furnish  a  practical  lesson  of  the  respect  due  to  national  eti 
quette. 

When  he  was  in  London  there  were  several  eminent  gentle 
men  of  the  United  States  there  at  the  same  time ;  these  as 
well  as  Mr.  Douglas  were  about  to  be  presented  to  her  majesty 


444  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

at  the  next  reception.  When  the  time  came,  there  came  also 
the  inexorable  requirement  that  the  Americans  must  put  off 
that  costume  and  dress  which  is  universal  at  home,  and  put  on 
another  which  is  entirely  discarded  in  their  own  country.  Mr. 
Douglas  protested,  as  did  also  his  countrymen,  but  the  require 
ments  of  royal  etiquette  could  not  be  evaded.  The  alternative 
was  to  submit  to  a  change  of  costume,  or  be  denied  a  presenta 
tion  to  the  queen.  Mr.  Douglas  accepted  the  latter,  and  his 
companions  put  on  the  dress  required  by  the  court ;  they  were 
presented  and  he  was  not. 

Subsequently  he  visited  St.  Petersburg,  and  for  two  weeks 
examined  personally  all  the  public  institutions  of  the  capital, 
and  sought  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  manners,  laws  and 
government  of  that  city  and  of  the  empire.  He  had  not  made 
known  his  official  position.  After  this  time  he  left  his  card  at 
the  residence  of  Count  Nesselrode,  and  promptly  received  a 
cordial  and  pressing  invitation  to  that  minister's  palace.  The 
interview  was  a  pleasant  and  agreeable  one;  the  political 
affairs  of  the  United  States  and  of  Europe  were  discussed  un 
reservedly  and  with  mutual  gratification.  At  this,  or  a  subse 
quent  interview,  Mr.  Douglas  announced  his  intended  depart 
ure  from  the  city,  when  Count  Nesselrode  inquired  if  he  did 
not  desire  a  presentation  to  the  emperor.  Mr.  Douglas  ex 
pressed  the  great  pleasure  such  an  honor  would  be  to  him,  but 
suggested  the  difficulty  of  the  "  court  dress."  Count  Xessel- 
rode,  after  some  consultation  upon  this  point,  frankly  told  Mr. 
Douglas  that  he  was  right;  that  a  citizen  of  the  United  States 
entitled  to  be  presented  to  a  monarch  in  Europe,  if  received  at 
all  should  be  received  in  that  dress  in  which  he  would  be  ad 
mitted  to  the  presence  of  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
and  added  that  if  Mr.  Douglas  desired  to  be  presented  to  the 
emperor  he  could  possibly  arrange  the  interview  within  a  few 
days. 

Mr.  Douglas  thanked  his  distinguished  friend  for  his  kind 
ness  to  him  personally,  and  also  for  his  manly  and  honorable 
tribute  to  the  dignity  of  American  citizenship. 

The  result  was  that  in  a  few  hours  Mr.  Douglas  was  visited 
by  an  officer  of  the  imperial  household,  with  a  notice  that  he 
\vould  be  received  by  the  emperor.  Mr.  Douglas  had  the  good 
fortune  to  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  Baron  Stoeckle,  who  is 
well  known  in  the  United  States  from  his  official  position  in 


VARIOUS   MATTERS.  445 

the  Russian  embassy  at  Washington.  The  emperor  was  at 
that  time  celebrating,  at  some  distance  from  St.  Petersburg,  a 
grand  Russian  national  festival,  and  was  reviewing  the  impe 
rial  army.  Accompanied  by  Baron  Stoeckle,  Mr.  Douglas 
proceeded  in  an  imperial  carriage  and  under  an  imperial  escort 
to  the  neighborhood  of  the  camp,  where  he  left  the  carriage 
and  proceeded  on  horseback  towards  the  position  on  the  field 
occupied  by  the  emperor.  At  a  proper  distance  he  was  met 
by  officers  of  the  imperial  staff  and  conducted  to  the  emperor. 

He  was  the  only  American  present  at  that  magnificent  dis 
play  of  the  power  and  wealth  of  the  empire ;  representatives 
from  all  quarters  of  the  world  were  present  to  witness  one  of 
the  grandest  festivals  of  Russia,  graced  by  the  presence  of  the 
imperial  household  and  of  all  the  most  distinguished  individuals 
of  the  empire,  and  yet  into  this  scene  of  royal  magnificence 
Mr.  Douglas  was  admitted  and  welcomed  with  a  frank  cor 
diality  by  the  emperor,  in  the  same  black  suit  of  cloth  in  which, 
just  before  his  departure,  he  had  visited  Franklin  Pierce. 

The  rule  asserted  by  Mr.  Douglas  and  confirmed  and  ap 
proved  by  Count  Nesselrode — the  veteran  diplomatist  and 
most  eminent  statesman  of  Europe — is  the  true  one.  Ameri 
cans  are  the  only  people  who  are  required  to  put  on  a  mas 
querade  dress  to  obtain  admission  to  the  presence  of  the  Queen 
of  England.  The  rule  that  persons  of  all  nationalities  may 
be  admitted  in  that  costume  in  which  they  would  be  received 
by  their  own  sovereign  is  observed  toward  all  persons  except 
citizens  of  the  United  States.  They  are  excepted.  An  officer 
in  the  service  of  a  petty  prince  of  a  German  kingdom,  if  pre 
sented,  can  obtain  audience  in  the  same  suit  that  he  would  ap 
pear  in  before  his  prince,  but  an  American  will  be  excluded 
unless  he  puts  off  the  dress  in  which  he  was  admitted  to  the 
table  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  puts  on  the 
tinseled  toggery  prescribed  by  authority. 

Against  this  unjust  discrimination  between  his  countrymen 
and  citizens  of  other  nations  Mr.  Douglas  protested,  and 
preferred  a  total  exclusion  from  the  presence  of  royalty  to  a 
submission  to  any  such  degrading  rule. 

Mr.  Douglas  visited  Sebastopol  and  all  the  scenes  shortly 
after  made  historical  by  the  war  then  gathering  in  Europe.  He 
visited  all  the  principal  points  on  the  continent,  storing  his  mind 
with  practical  information  concerning  the  commerce,  laws, 


446  LIFE  OF  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

and  governments  of  the  countries  in  which  he  sojourned,  in 
formation  which  has  since  proved  of  great  advantage  to  him. 
His  descriptions  of  what  he  saw  in  Europe,  his  conversations 
and  interviews  with  the  great  and  illustrious  men  whom  he 
met  during  his  trip,  are  of  the  most  entertaining  and  instruc 
tive  character.  No  one  who  has  ever  enjoyed  an  evening  with 
him,  when  he  discoursed  of  these  things,  has  ever  failed  in  ex 
pressing  the  delight  and  gratification  afforded  by  Mr.  Douglas' 
graphic  delineations  of  men,  and  his  charming  pictures  of  scenes 
and  events  in  Europe. 

ME.   DOUGLAS   AND   THE  PRESIDENCY. 

In  1848  the  Democratic  State  Convention  in  Illinois  unan 
imously  recommended  Mr.  Douglas  as  a  candidate  for  the 
presidency.  He  was  then  but  thirty-five  years  of  age,  and  had 
already  attracted  the  attention  of  the  nation  by  his  abilities 
and  great  success  as  an  orator.  His  services  in  Congress,  dur 
ing  the  four  years  he  was  a  member  of  the  House,  and  his  one 
year's  service  in  the  Senate,  had  recommended  him  most 
strongly  to  a  very  large  portion  of  the  people  of  the  country, 
as  a  man  possessing  more  of  the  natural  characteristics  of 
Jacksonian  power  and  Democracy  than  any  other  statesman. 

Mr.  Douglas,  however,  was  a  friend  and  supporter  of  Gen 
eral  Cass.  The  doctrines  declared  in  the  celebrated  Nichol 
son  letter  were  doctrines  of  pure  popular  sovereignty.  As  in 
1856,  so  in  1848,  he  preferred  infinitely  a  platform  embodying 
correct  principles  to  any  personal  honors  or  distinctions.  He 
and  his  friends  were  warm  supporters  of  General  Cass  for  the 
nomination. 

The  result  of  that  convention  is  well  known.  The  names 
of  Buchanan,  Woodbury,  Calhoun,  Dallas,  Worth,  and  others 
were  presented.  The  two-thirds  rule  was  in  force.  On  the 
first  ballot  Mr.  Cass  received  125  votes,  Mr.  Buchanan,  93,  Mr. 
Woodbury,  58,  and  the  other  votes,  making  up  the  aggregate 
of  253,  were  scattered.  Gen.  Cass  lacked  45  votes  of  having 
two-thirds,  and  two  votes  of  a  majority.  On  the  second  bal 
lot  he  received  133,  being  a  majority,  but  still  less  than  two- 
thirds.  The  friends  of  other  candidates  then  seeing  that  the 
distinguished  statesman  of  Michigan  was  the  choice  of  a  ma 
jority,  after  the  third  ballot,  yielded  to  what  was  the  expressed 


VARIOUS   MATTEES.  447 

wishes  of  a  majority,  and  gave  him  on  the  4th  ballot  the 
required  two-thirds  vote,  and  then  nominated  him  by  accla 
mation. 

In  1852  the  Democracy  of  Illinois  again  recommended  Mr. 
Douglas  to  the  Democracy  of  the  nation  for  the  Presidency ; 
other  states  did  the  same.  The  Convention  met  at  Baltimore, 
and  having  adopted  the  two-thirds  rule  proceeded  to  a  ballot. 
The  following  ballotings  will  exhibit  the  state  of  the  vote  dur 
ing  the  protracted  contest. 


1st. 
Cass,          116  , 

llth. 
....101.. 

.  .  .  87..  , 

81st. 
64  
,  79  

48th. 
...73 
...28 

50 

92  

...38 

Marcv          27.  . 

27... 

,  26  

...90 

Butler            2    . 

.     i 

16  

...   1 

Houston,        3  

8.  . 

10  

...  6 

Pierce.           0  .  . 

.     0.. 

.   0.. 

..55 

On  the  next  ballot  Gen.  Pierce  received  283  votes,  and  was 
then  unanimously  nominated.  It  will  be  seen  that  until  the 
49th  ballot  no  candidate  had  received  a  majority  of  the  Con 
vention  ;  had  Mr.  Buchanan,  or  Mr.  Marcy,  or  Mr.  Cass  ob 
tained  a  majority,  the  friends  of  the  other  candidates  would 
undoubtedly  have  yielded  their  individual  preferences,  and 
given  him  the  required  two-thirds  vote. 

In  1856  the  ever  memorable  Cincinnati  Convention  met  in 
June.  The  two-thirds  rule  was  again  adopted.  Mr.  Douglas 
had  been  recommended  by  the  conventions  of  several  states, 
but  as  this  was  the  first  National  Convention  of  the  Democra 
cy  since  the  passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  he  was  more 
solicitous  for  the  adoption  of  a  platform  that  would  approve 
the  principles  of  that  measure  than  he  was  for  the  nomination. 
His  name,  however,  was  submitted  to  the  Convention  by  his 
friends.  There  were  but  four  names  before  the  Convention — 
Messrs.  Buchanan,  Pierce,  Douglas,  and  Cass.  The  whole 
number  of  votes  was  296,  of  which  149  would  be  a  majority, 
and  198  two-thirds.  There  were  seventeen  ballotings.  On 
the  first  ballot  Mr.  Buchanan  had  135,  Mr.  Pierce  122,  Mr. 
Douglas  33,  Mr.  Cass  6.  On  the  thirteenth  ballot,  Mr.  Bu 
chanan  received  150  votes,  being  a  majority,  and  the  first  time 
that  a  majority  vote  had  been  obtained  by  any  one.  Mr. 
Douglas  was  at  Washington,  and  the  result  of  the  several  bal 
lotings  was  announced  in  that  city  as  soon  as  made.  The 


448  LIFE   OP   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

Convention  adjourned  that  day  without  making  a  nomination, 
and  when  it  assembled  next  day,  the  16th  ballot  was  taken 
with  the  following  result :  Buchanan  168,  Douglas  122,  Cass  6. 
Mr.  Buchanan  lacked  thirty  of  the  required  two-thirds  vote. 
The  Convention  was  at  a  "  dead  lock." 

The  eventful  scene  that  took  place  can  hardly  be  described 
in  words.  A  majority  of  the  delegates  had  expressed  their 
choice ;  had  recorded  their  wish  for  the  nomination  of  Mr. 
Buchanan.  It  was  true  the  two-thirds  rule  had  been  adopted, 
but  that  rule  was  never  designed  or  intended  to  defeat  the 
wishes  of  a  majority  when  once  clearly  and  unmistakably  as 
certained  and  declared.  The  vote  of  the  states  was  announced 
and  recorded.  The  choice  of  the  majority  was  declared,  and 
there  were  no  questions  asked  whether  that  majority  was 
made  up  of  delegates  from  Democratic  states,  or  from  states 
hopelessly  in  the  power  of  the  opposition.  It  was  regarded  as 
the  vote  of  the  Democracy  of  the  nation,  a  vote  given  by  men 
in  non-Democratic  states  as  well  as  in  Democratic  states,  with 
but  one  purpose  and  aim,  and  that  was  to  nominate  the  man 
who  in  the  estimation  of  the  whole  Democracy  was  the  strong 
est  candidate  for  the  time.  Mr.  Buchanan's  168  votes  on  the 
sixteenth  ballot  were  given  for  him  as  follows:  from  states 
that  subsequently  voted  for  him  for  President,  86  ;  from  states 
that  voted  for  Fremont,  82.  Mr.  Douglas'  122  votes  were 
given  him — from  states  that  voted  for  Buchanan,  84 ;  from 
states  that  voted  for  Fremont,  38.  General  Cass  received  the 
vote  of  California.  A  majority  of  the  delegates  representing  the 
Democratic  states  voted  against  Mr.  Buchanan  on  the  sixteenth 
ballot ;  yet,  he  having  a  clear  majority  of  the  delegates  from 
all  the  states,  after  the  result  of  that  ballot  was  announced, 
certain  proceedings  took  place  which  are  thus  recorded  in  the 
official  report  of  the  action  of  the  Convention : 

"  Mr.  Preston,  of  Kentucky,  said :  Mr.  President :  As  one  of  the  friends  of 
Mr.  Douglas,  I  have  become  sufficiently  satisfied,  by  the  evidences  presented 
here,  that  it  is  the  wish  of  this  Convention  that  James  Buchanan  should  be 
the  nominee  for  President  of  the  United  States.  I  believe  that  Judge  Doug 
las  himself,  and  the  friends  of  Judge  Douglas — and  when  I  say  this  I  speak 
with  some  degree  of  knowledge  on  the  subject — I  believe  that  the  friends  of 
Mr.  Douglas  will  be  among  the  first  to  come  forward,  and  in  a  spirit  of  lib 
erality  put  an  end  to  the  useless  contest.  I  will  now  give  way  to  the  gen 
tleman  from  Illinois,  the  friend  of  Mr.  Douglas. 

"During  Mr.  Preston's  remarks  there  were  loud  expressions  of  dissatisfac 
tion  and  cries  of  '  No,  no !'  '  Don't  withdraw !'  '  Don't  withdraw.' 


VARIOUS   MATTEES.  449 

*  Here  W.  A.  Richardson,  of  Illinois,  arose,  and  waving  his  hand,  there 
was  immediate  and  general  silence.  In  a  solemn  and  impressive  manner 
that  gentleman  proceeded  to  address  the  Convention  as  follows : 

"  Mr.  Richardson.  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen  of  the  Convention :  Be 
fore  undertaking  to  advise  any  gentleman  on  this  floor  what  he  ought  to  do, 
I  consider  that  I  have  a  duty  which  I  owe  to  my  constituents,  and  which, 
since  it  is  now  imposed  on  me,  I  feel  it  is  due  to  the  Democratic  party  and 
friends  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas  that  I  should  discharge.  Whatever  may  be 
the  opinion  of  the  gentlemen  as  to  the  contest,  I  am  satisfied  that  I  can  not 
advance  his  interests  or  the  interests  of  the  common  cause,  or  the  principles 
of  the  Democratic  party,  by  continuing  him  in  this  contest.  I  will,  there 
fore,  state  that  I  have  a  dispatch  from  Judge  Douglas,  which  I  desire  may 
be  permitted  to  be  read,  and  I  shall  then  withdraw  his  name  from  before  the 
Convention.  I  desire  gentlemen,  after  that,  to  decide  on  what  course  they 
may  deem  it  proper  to  pursue.  (Tremendous  applause — profound  sensation.) 

"  The  dispatch  was  sent  to  the  chair  to  be  read,  and  is  as  follows : 

"  '  LETTER  OF  S.   A.   DOUGLAS  TO  W.   A.   RICHARDSON',    OP  ILLINOIS. 

"  'WASHINGTON,  June,  4,  1856. 

"  '  DEAR  SIR  :  From  the  telegraphic  reports  in  the  newspapers,  I  fear  that 
an  embittered  state  of  feeling  is  being  engendered  in  the  Convention,  which 
may  endanger  the  harmony  and  success  of  our  party.  I  wish  you  and  all 
my  friends  to  bear  in  mind  that  I  have  a  thousand  fold  more  anxiety  for  the 
triumph  of  our  principles  than  for  my  own  personal  elevation. 

"  '  If  the  withdrawal  of  my  name  will  contribute  to  the  harmony  of  our  party 
or  the  success  of  our  cause,  I  hope  you  will  not  hesitate  to  take  the  step. 
Especially  it  is  my  desire  that  the  action  of  the  Convention  will  embody  and 
express  the  wishes,  feelings  and  principles  of  the  Democracy  of  the  Repub 
lic  ;  and  hence,  if  Mr.  Pierce  or  Mr.  Buchanan,  or  any  other  statesman  who 
is  faithful  to  the  great  issue  involved  in  the  contest,  shall  receive  a  majority 
of  the  Convention,  I  earnestly  hope  that  all  my  friends  will  unite  in  insuring 
him  two-thirds,  and  then  in  making  his  nomination  unanimous.  Let  no  per 
sonal  considerations  disturb  the  harmony  or  endanger  the  triumph  of  our 
principles.  S.  A.  DOUGLAS. 

"  '  To  Hon.  W.  A.  RICHARDSON,  Burnett  House,  Cincinnati,  Ohio.' 

"  The  reading  of  this  dispatch  was  interrupted  by  frequent  and  tremend 
ous  applause.  It  was  some  time  before  order  could  be  restored.  When  the 
Convention  had  subsided  into  something  like  order,  the  president  announced 
that  they  would  proceed  with  the  seventeenth  ballot." 

On  the  next,  or  seventeenth  ballot,  Mr.  Buchanan  was  nom 
inated  unanimously.  The  friends  of  Mr.  Douglas  at  once  con 
ceding  the  justice  of  the  suggestions  in  his  letter,  that  Mr. 
Buchanan  having  received  the  votes  of  a  majority  of  the  Con 
vention  ought  to  be  given  the  required  two-thirds. 

On  the  4th  of  January,  1860,  the  Democratic  State  Con 
vention  of  Illinois,  in  consequence  of  the  call  of  the  National 
Convention  at  an  earlier  day  than  usual,  met  some  months  in 
advance  of  the  ordinary  period,  to  appoint  delegates  to  Charles 
ton.  The  Convention  was  large,  harmonious,  and  included 


450  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

within  its  members  the  veterans  who  had  done  service  in  the 
party  for  twenty  or  thirty  years.  The  following  resolutions, 
reported  by  a  committee  of  which  the  Hon.  O.  B.  FICKLIN  was 
chairman,  were  adopted  unanimously. 

WHEREAS,  The  Democratic  party  assembled  in  national  convention  in 
June,  1856,  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  all  the  delegates  from  every  state  in 
the  Union,  adopted  a  platform  of  principles,  as  the  only  authoritative  expo 
sition  of  Democratic  doctrines,  which  remains  unaltered  and  unalterable 
until  the  meeting  of  the  Charleston  convention. 

AND  WHEREAS,  We  have  good  reasons  for  the  belief,  that  if  we  depart 
from  the  doctrines  of  that  platform  by  attempting  to  force  upon  the  party 
new  issues  and  tests,  the  Democracy  of  the  several  states  rnay  never  be  able 
to  agree  upon  another  platform  of  principles  with  the  same  unanimity. 

AND  WHEREAS,  The  Democratic  party  is  the  only  political  organization 
which  can  maintain  in  their  purity  the  principles  of  self-government,  the 
reserved  rights  of  the  states,  and  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union  under  the 
Constitution. 

AND  WHEREAS,  The  unity,  integrity,  and  supremacy  of  the  Democratic 
party  depend  upon  its  faithful  adherence  to  those  fundamental  principles 
upon  which  we  have  achieved  so  many  glorious  triumphs,  and  to  which  we 
are  solemnly  and  irrevocably  pledged.  Therefore, 

Resolved,  That  the  Democracy  of  Illinois,  in  state  convention  assembled, 
do  reassert  and  affirm  the  Cincinnati  platform,  in  the  words,  spirit,  and 
meaning  with  which  the  same  was  adopted,  understood,  and  ratified  by  the 
people  in  1856,  and  do  reject  and  utterly  repudiate  all  such  new  issues  and 
tests  as  the  revival  of  the  African  slave  trade,  or  a  congressional  slave  code 
for  the  territories,  or  the  doctrine  that  slavery  is  a  federal  institution  deriving 
its  validity  in  the  several  states  and  territories  in  which  it  exists  from  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  instead  of  being  a  mere  municipal  insti 
tution,  existing  in  such  states  and  territories  "  under  the  laws  thereof." 

Resolved,  That  there  can  be  no  exception  to  the  rule  that  every  right  guar 
anteed  by  the  Constitution  must  be  protected  by  law,  in  all  cases  where  leg 
islation  is  necessary  for  its  protection  and  enjoyment,  and,  in  obedience  to 
this  principle,  it  was  the  imperative  duty  of  Congress  to  enact  an  efficient 
law  for  the  surrender  of  fugitive  slaves. 

Resolved,  That  no  considerations  of  political  expediency  or  partizan  policy 
can  release  any  member  of  Congress  or  American  citizen  from  his  sworn  ob 
ligations  of  fidelity  to  the  Constitution,  or  excuse  him  for  not  advocating  and 
supporting  all  legislation  which  may  be  necessary  for  the  protection  and  en 
joyment  of  every  right  guaranteed  by  that  instrument. 

Resolved,  That  the  Democratic  party  of  the  Union  is  pledged  in  faith  and 
honor,  by  the  Cincinnati  platform  and  its  indorsement  of  the  Kansas-Ne 
braska  act,  to  the  following  propositions : 

1st.  That  all  questions  pertaining  to  African  slavery  in  the  territories  shall 
be  for  ever  banished  from  the  halls  of  Congress. 

2d.  That  the  people  of  the  territories  respectively  shall  be  left  perfectly 
free  to  make  just  such  laws  and  regulations  in  respect  to  slavery  and  all 
other  matters  of  local  concern  as  they  may  determine  for  themselves,  sub 
ject  to  no  other  limitations  or  restrictions  than  those  imposed  by  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States. 

3d.  That  all  questions  affecting  the  validity  or  constitutionality  of  any  ter 
ritorial  enactments,  shall  be  referred  for  final  decision  to  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  as  the  only  tribunal  provided  by  the  Constitution  which 
is  competent  to  determine  them. 


VARIOUS   MATTERS.  451 

Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  the  Democracy  of  Illinois,  Mr.  Buchanan 
truly  interpreted  the  Cincinnati  platform  in  his  letter  accepting  the  presiden 
tial  nomination,  when  he  said,  "  the  people  of  a  territory,  like  those  of  a 
state,  shall  decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist 
within  their  limits." 

Resolved,  That  we  recognize  the  paramount  judicial  authority  of  the  Su 
preme  Court  of  the  United  States,  as  provided  in  the  Constitution,  and  hold 
it  to  be  the  imperative  duty  of  all  good  citizens  to  respect  and  obey  the  de 
cision  of  that  tribunal,  and  to  aid,  by  all  lawful  means,  in  carrying  them 
into  faithful  execution. 

Resolved,  That  the  Democracy  of  Illinois  repel,  with  just  indignation,  the 
injurious  and  unfounded  imputation  upon  the  integrity  and  impartiality  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  which  is  contained  in  the  assumption  on  the  part  of  the 
so-called  Republicans  that,  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  that  august  tribunal  de 
cided  against  the  right  of  the  people  of  the  territory  to  decide  the  slavery 
question  for  themselves,  without  giving  them  an  opportunity  of  being  heard 
by  counsel  in  defense  of  their  rights  of  self-government,  and  when  there 
was  no  territorial  law,  enactment  or  fact  before  the  court  upon  which  that 
question  could  possibly  arise. 

Resolved,  That  whenever  Congress  or  the  Legislature  of  any  state  or  terri 
tory  shall  make  any  enactment,  or  do  any  act  which  attempts  to  divest,  impair, 
or  prejudice  any  right  which  the  owner  of  slaves,  or  any  other  species  of 
property,  may  have  or  claim  in  any  territory  or  elsewhere,  by  virtue  of  the 
Constitution  or  otherwise,  and  the  party  aggrieved  shall  bring  his  case  be 
fore  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  the  Democracy  of  Illinois,  as 
in  duty  bound  by  their  obligations  of  fidelity  to  the  Constitution,  will  cheer 
fully  and  faithfully  respect  and  abide  by  the  decision,  and  use  all  lawful 
means  to  aid  in  giving  it  full  effect  according  to  its  true  intent  and  meaning. 

Resolved,  That  the  Democracy  of  Illinois  view  with  inexpressible  horror 
and  indignation  the  murderous  and  treasonable  conspiracy  of  John  Brown 
and  his  confederates  to  incite  a  civil  insurrection  in  the  slaveholding  states ; 
and  heartily  rejoice  that  the  attempt  was  promptly  suppressed,  and  the 
majesty  of  the  law  vindicated,  by  inflicting  upon  the  conspirators,  after  a 
fair  and  impartial  trial,  that  just  punishment  which  the  enormity  of  their 
crimes  so  richly  merited. 

Resolved,  That  the  Harper's  Terry  outrage  was  the  natural  consequence 
and  logical  result  of  the  doctrines  and  teachings  of  the  Republican  party,  as 
explained  and  enforced  in  their  platforms,  partizan  presses,  books  and  pamph 
lets,  and  in  the  speeches  of  their  leaders,  in  and  out  of  Congress  ;  and  for 
this  reason  an  honest  and  law-abiding  people  should  not  be  satisfied  with 
the  disavowal  or  disapproval  by  the  Republican  leaders  of  John  Brown's 
acts,  unless  they  also  repudiate  the  doctrines  and  teachings  which  produced 
those  monstrous  crimes,  and  denounce  all  persons  who  profess  to  sympathize 
with  murderers  and  traitors,  lamenting  then"  fate  and  venerating  their  mem 
ory  as  martyrs  who  lost  their  lives  in  a  just  and  holy  cause. 

Resolved,  That  the  delegates  representing  Illinois  in  the  Charleston  con 
vention  be  instructed  to  vote  for  and  use  all  honorable  means  to  secure  the 
readoption  of  the  Cincinnati  platform,  without  any  additions  or  subtrac 
tions. 

Resolved,  That  no  honorable  man  can  accept  a  seat  as  a  delegate  in  the 
national  Democratic  convention,  or  should  be  recognized  as  a  member  of  the 
Democratic  party,  who  will  not  abide  the  decisions  of  such  convention  and 
support  its  nominees. 

Resolved,  That  we  affirm  and  repeat  the  principles  set  forth  in  the  resolu 
tions  of  the  last  state  convention  of  the  Illinois  Democracy,  held  in  this  city 


452  LIFE   OF    STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

on  the  21st  day  of  April,  1858,  and  will  not  hesitate  to  apply  those  princi 
ples  wherever  a  proper  case  may  arise. 

fiesolved,  That  the  Democracy  of  the  State  of  Illinois  is  unanimously  in 
favor  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas  for  the  next  presidency,  and  the  delegates  from 
this  state  are  instructed  to  vote  for  him,  and  make  every  honorable  effort  to 
procure  his  nomination. 

The  Democratic  State  Conventions  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Wiscon 
sin,  Minnesota,  Michigan,  and  Iowa,  have  since  adopted  reso 
lutions  substantially  of  the  same  character,  and  in  other  states, 
where  delegates  are  appointed  by  districts,  resolutions  express 
ing  the  same  doctrine  and  instructions  in  favor  of  Douglas' 
nomination  at  Charleston  have  also  been  adopted.  In  Penn 
sylvania,  Tennessee,  New  Jersey  and  New  York,  and  in  other 
states  where  no  expression  has  been  made  in  favor  of  any  par 
ticular  person  for  the  presidency,  the  state  conventions  have 
asserted  principles  and  proclaimed  doctrines  so  much  in  ac 
cordance  with  those  of  Mr.  Douglas,  that  he  and  his  friends 
would  be  somewhat  embarrassed  if  forced  to  chose  between 
them,  in  selecting  the  particular  one  they  would  prefer.  The 
resolutions  so  enthusiastically  adopted  by  the  Tennessee  Demo 
cracy  in  their  state  Convention  are  resolutions  that  can  be 
adopted  and  as  heartily  and  emphatically  approved  and  sus 
tained  by  the  Democracy  of  the  northwest,  as  they  can  be  by 
those  gallant  Democrats  who  learned  Democracy  from  the 
precept  and  example  of  Jackson  and  Polk. 

THE   DEMOCRATIC    ORGANIZATION   IN   ILLINOIS. 

As  has  been  stated  elsewhere  in  this  volume,  there  was  no 
organization  of  the  Democracy  of  Illinois  until  1837.  On  the 
22d  of  July  of  that  year,  the  Legislature  being  then  in  session, 
a  meeting  of  the  Democratic  members  and  other  Democrats 
was  held  at  the  State  House  in  Vandalia  to  adopt  such  meas 
ures  as  would  produce  "  concert  of  action"  in  the  party,  and 
to  enable  it  to  combine  all  its  members  against  the  strong  and 
united  opposition.  A  call  for  a  state  Convention,  to  meet  at 
Vandalia  in  December  following,  was  agreed  upon,  and  a  com 
mittee  of  thirty  were  selected  to  prepare  and  publish  an  address 
to  the  people  of  the  state.  On  that  committee  were  James 
Semple,  afterwards  United  States  senator,  \V.  A.  Richardson, 
James  Shields,  now  of  Minnesota,  John  A.  McClernand,  now 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  Robert  Smith,  ex-member 


VARIOUS   MATTERS.  453 

of  Congress,  and  other  leading  Democrats.  A  Central  Com 
mittee,  consisting  of  five  members  from  each  congressional 
district,  was  also  appointed,  viz :  1st.  W.  A.  Richardson,  J.  W. 
Stephenson,  E.  D.  Taylor,  Newton  Cloud,  J.  D.  Early ;  2d.  W. 
L.  D.  Ewing,  William  Walters,  H.  Smith,  Joseph  Kitchell,  Dr. 
Turney;  3d.  H.  M.  Rollings,  H.  L.Webb,  R.  G.  Murphy,  A. 
M.  Jenkins,  and  S.  M.  Hubbard.  This  was  the  first  State 
Committee  appointed  by  the  Democracy  of  Illinois. 

The  Convention  met  in  December,  1837,  and  nominated  J. 
W.  Stephenson  for  governor,  and  J.  S.  Hacker  for  lieutenant- 
governor.  The  candidates  having  both  withdrawn  in  April,  the 
Convention  was  called  to  reassemble,  and  did  reassemble,  on  the 
5th  of  June,  1838.  The  Convention  nominated  Thomas  Carlin 
for  governor  and  S.  H.  Anderson  for  lieutenant-governor  ;  and 
appointed  as  the  State  Committee  Y.  Hickox,  John  Taylor, 
Robert  Allen,  John  Calhoun,  C.  R.  Hurst,  J.  S.  Roberts,  and 
David  Prickett.  This  committee,  in  1839,  called  a  state  Con 
vention,  to  meet  in  the  December  following ;  and  on  the  9th 
of  December  the  second  Democratic  State  Convention  in  Illi 
nois  met  at  Springfield,  to  which  place  the  seat  of  government 
had  been  removed.  This  body  appointed  as  the  State  Com 
mittee,  until  the  next  state  Convention,  E.  D.  Taylor, V.  Hickox, 
James  Shields,  J.  R.  Diller,  M.  Carpenter,  William  Walters, 
and  G.R.Webber;  and  in  September,  1841,  they  issued  a 
call  for  a  state  Convention  to  meet  in  December  following. 

On  the  13th  of  December,  1841,  the  Third  Democratic  State 
Convention  met  at  Springfield.  Having  nominated  candidates, 
it  renewed  the  state  authority  by  appointing  the  following 
State  Committee :  D.  B.  Campbell,  James  Shepherd,  and  G.  R. 
Weber,  of  Sangamon  ;  James  H.  Ralston,  of  Adams  ;  Thomp 
son  Campbell,  of  Jo  Daviess  ;  N".  W.  Nunnally,  of  Edgar ;  and 
John  A.  McClernand,  of  Gallatin.  A.  W.  Snyder  was  nomi 
nated  for  governor,  and  John  Moore  for  lieutenant-governor. 
Snyder  died  during  the  canvass,  and  the  Hon.  Thomas  Ford,  a 
judge  of  the  Supreme  Court,  was  selected  as  the  candidate  in 
his  stead.  The  State  Committee  appointed  by  the  Convention 
of  1841  called,  in  1842,  a  state  Convention  (the  4th),  to  meet 
in  February,  1844,  to  appoint  delegates  to  the  Baltimore  Con 
vention.  It  made  no  change  in  the  State  Committee. 

The  Fifth  Democratic  State  Convention  met  (pursuant  to  the 
call  of  the  committee)  on  February  10,  1846.  It  nominated 


454  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

A.  C.  French  for  governor,  and  Joseph  B.  Wells  for  lieutenant- 
governor.  It  appointed  as  the  State  Committee :  J.R.Diller, 
William  Walters,  B.  C.  Webster,  E.  D.  Jones,  Peter  Sweat, 
M.  McConnell,  and  John  Moore.  In  1847,  a  Convention  having 
met  and  prepared  a  new  Constitution  for  the  state,  which  went 
into  operation  in  April,  1848,  the  office  of  governor  was  to  be 
come  vacant  on  the  1st  of  January,  1849. 

The  Sixth  Democratic  State  Convention  met  (pursuant  to 
the  call  of  the  State  Committee)  on  the  24th  of  April,  1848, 
and  nominated  A.  C.  French  for  reelection  as  governor,  and 
William  McMurtry  for  lieutenant-governor — besides  a  number 
of  candidates  for  other  state  offices.  It  also  appointed  the 
delegates  to  the  Baltimore  Convention.  The  following  gentle 
men  were  appointed  the  State  Committee:  V.  Hickox,  of 
Sangamon ;  E.  F.  Sweeney,  of  Warren ;  Thomas  Dyer,  of  Cook ; 
James  Bigler,  of  Brown ;  J.  P.  Cooper,  of  Clark ;  F.  D.  Pres 
ton,  of  Gallatin;  Robert  Dunlap,  of  Madison;  J.  R.  Diller,  of 
Sangamon;  James  Dunlap,  of  Morgan;  H.  E.  Roberts,  of  San 
gamon. 

The  Seventh  State  Convention  met  (pursuant  to  the  call  of 
the  State  Committee)  April  19,  1852.  It  nominated  J.  A. 
Matteson  for  governor,  and  the  full  list  of  candidates  for  other 
offices.  It  appointed  the  delegates  to  the  Baltimore  Conven 
tion,  and  selected  as  the  State  Committee  the  following  gentle 
men — four  from  the  State  at  large  and  one  from  each  Con 
gressional  District,  viz. :  At  large,  John  A.  McClernand,  of 
Gallatin  ;  J.  McRoberts,  of  Will  ;  C.  Sweeney,  of  Jo 
Daviess,  and  T.  L.  Harris,  of  Menard;  1st  district,  W.  H. 
Snyder,  of  St.  Clair ;  2d  district,  F.  D.  Preston,  of  Jefferson ; 
3d  district,  B.  W.  Henry,  of  Shelby;  4th  district,  E.  Wilcox, 
of  Kane ;  5th  district,  M.  W.  Delahay,  of  Green  ;  6th  district, 
James  Sibley,  of  Hancock ;  7th  district,  C.  H.  Lanphier,  of  San 
gamon. 

On  the  1st  of  May,  1856,  the  Eighth  Democratic  State 
Convention  met  (pursuant  to  the  call  of  the  committee)  at 
Springfield.  The  Convention  nominated  W.  A.  Richardson 
for  governor,  and  nominated  an  entire  state  ticket ;  appointed 
delegates  to  the  Cincinnati  Convention,  and  selected  the  fol 
lowing  State  Committee :  For  the  state  at  large,  Alexander 
Starne,  and  Charles  H.  Lanphier ;  1st  district,  F.  W.  S.  Braw- 
ley;  2d  district,  John  Dement;  3d  district,  William  Reddick; 


VARIOUS   MATTERS.  455 

4th  district,  Robert  Hollo  way;  5th  district,  W.  H.  Carlin; 
6th  district,  Virgil  Hickox;  7th  district,  W.  D.  Latshaw; 
8th  district,  A.  H.  Trapp ;  9th  district,  S.  S.  Taylor. 

The  Ninth  Democratic  State  Convention  met  (pursuant  to 
the  call  of  the  above  named  committee)  at  Springfield,  on  the 
21st  of  April,  1858,  and  nominated  W.  B.  Fondey  for  State 
Treasurer  and  A.  C.  French  for  Superintendent  of  Public  In 
struction.  It  appointed  as  the  State  Committee  the  following 
persons :  At  large,  John  Moore,  C.  H.  Lanphier.  1st  district, 
C.  J.  Horsman ;  2d  district,  J.  W.  Sheahan ;  3d  district,  N". 
Elwood ;  4th  district,  John  McDonald  ;  5th  district,  Alex 
ander  Starne;  6th  district,  V.  Hickox;  7th  district,  S.  A. 
Buckmaster;  8th  district,  O.  B.  Ficklin;  9th  district,  John 
White. 

The  Tenth  Democratic  State  Convention  met  (pursuant  to 
the  call  of  the  above  committee)  at  Springfield,  January  4, 
1860,  and  appointed  delegates  to  Charleston.  The  Convention 
did  not  nominate  candidates  for  state  officers,  and  by  resolu 
tion  continued  the  existing  State  Committee  in  office,  until 
the  meeting  of  the  Convention  to  be  held  to  nominate  candi 
dates  for  state  offices,  and  an  electoral  ticket. 

That  committee  have  called  the  Eleventh  Democratic  State 
Convention  to  meet  at  Springfield,  on  the  13th  of  June,  to 
nominate  candidates  for  Governor,  Lieutenant-governor,  Sec 
retary  of  State,  Auditor  of  Public  Accounts,  State  Treasurer, 
and  Superintendant  of  Public  Instruction,  also  eleven  candi 
dates  for  Presidential  electors — electors  pledged  to  vote  for 
the  nominees  of  the  Charleston  Convention. 

For  twenty-two  years  the  authority  of  the  Democratic  State 
Committee  has  been  transmitted  in  unbroken  succession  from 
each  State  Convention  to  the  following  one. 


456  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

UTAH   AND   THE   MOKMONS. — MINNESOTA. — OREGON. — SLAVE 
TKADE. 

AN  attempt  has  been  frequently  made  by  the  enemies  of 
popular  right  to  show  the  failure  of  popular  sovereignty  by 
pointing  to  the  enormities  aud  outrages  perpetrated  by  the 
Mormons  in  Utah.  There  is  no  question  that  the  practices  in 
Utah  are  dangerous  to  the  peace  of  the  Union,  and  dangerous 
to  the  moral  and  political  character  of  the  republic.  That  the 
political  and  social  condition  of  the  Mormon  settlements  in 
Utah  are  destined  to  be,  especially  if  weak  and  timorous  coun 
sels  prevail,  a  source  of  great  vexation  and  trouble  to  the 
American  people.  Polygamy  exists  in  Utah,  but  polygamy  is 
not  the  result  of  popular  sovereignty.  Polygamy  existed  in 
Utah  before  the  passage  of  the  territorial  act  of  1850,  and 
polygamy  will  exist  among  the  Mormons  so  long  and  wherever 
they  have  the  political  power.  The  Mormons  are  in  a  majority 
in  Kansas,  they  constitute  so  nearly  the  entire  population  that 
Utah  may  be  regarded  as  a  Mormon  community.  They  have 
peculiar  doctrines,  which  form  part  of  what  they  call  their 
"religious  faith."  They  have  an  ecclesiastical  organization, 
with  its  courts,  tribunals,  officers,  decrees,  mandates  and  pun 
ishments,  to  all  of  which  the  people,  as  members  of  a  religious 
society,  yield  implicit  obedience.  In  the  list  of  powers  claimed 
and  exercised  by  this  ecclesiastical  authority  is  that  of  sum 
mary  divorce,  and  of  sealing  in  marriage.  It  is  by  the  author 
ity  of  this  theocratical  government,  which  rules  above  and 
independently  of  the  civil  government  of  the  Territory,  that 
polygamy  and  its  attendant  vices  are  encouraged,  fostered  and 
promoted. 

If  Utah  were  a  state,  we  suppose -there  is  no  one  who  would 
admit  that  Congress  or  the  federal  government  had  the  con 
stitutional  power  or  authority  to  legislate  for  the  prohibition 
or  punishment  of  polygamy,  or  any  other  crime  of  that  nature 
within  the  limits  of  the  state.  It  would  be  one  of  those  in 
stances  where  the  federal  government  would  be  restrained, 
by  a  total  absence  of  all  power,  to  interpose  its  authority. 


UTAH    AND    THE    MOKMOJSS.  457 

The  question  whether  Congress  has  the  power,  or  having  it 
ought  to  exercise  the  power  of  passing  laws  for  the  prohibi 
tion,  or  for  the  protection  of  particular  institutions  in  the  ter 
ritories  is  one  upon  which  there  is,  has  been,  and  possibly  will 
always  be  a  variety  of  opinions.  The  Mormons,  however,  are 
not  dangerous  to  the  peace  of  the  Union  only  because  of  their 
polygamy.  That  is  a  social  evil,  which,  however  infamous  and 
dangerous  it  may  be,  is  nevertheless  one  which  is  confined 
within  their  own  territorial  limits,  and  to  their  own  people, 
There  is  a  large  class  of  people  who  seem  to  be  horrified  at  the 
existence  of  slavery  in  some  of  the  states,  and  who  do  not 
hesitate  to  attribute  to  that  institution  a  character  as  revolting 
in  many  respects  as  is  attributed  to  polygamy.  Indeed  the 
Republican  party  have  in  their  platform  linked  slavery  and 
polygamy  as  "  twin  relics  of  barbarism,"  which  ought  to  be 
rooted  out  by  all  constitutional  means.  They  disclaim  all  pur 
pose  of  interfering  with  slavery  in  the  states,  and  we  suppose 
would  be  equally  forbearing  to  polygamy  in  the  same  localities. 
But  against  both  in  the  territories  they  propose  to  wage  a 
constant  war — an  "  irrepressible  conflict." 

These  men  represent  that  in  the  slaveholding  states,  mar 
riage  is  an  institution  unknown  amongst  slaves,  and  that  owners 
have,  and  exercise  the  power  of  giving  slave  women  to  men 
as  wives,  and  then  of  separating  them,  and  forming  new 
arrangements  by  which  the  husband  of  one  woman  is  trans 
ferred  to  other  women,  and  the  wives  of  certain  men  trans 
ferred  to  other  men.  The  anti-slavery  orators  affect  to  see  but 
little  difference  between  the  moral  statutes  established  amongst 
slaves,  and  that  existing  under  the  polygamons  institutions  of 
the  Mormons.  Hence,  they  style  them,  "  those  twin  relics  of 
barbarism,  polygamy  and  slavery,"  against  whose  existence  in 
the  territories  there  must  ever  exist  an  "  irrepressible  conflict." 
The  Supreme  Court  has  decided  that  any  act  of  Congress  pro 
hibiting  slavery  in  the  territories  must  be  void,  but  no  decision 
in  terms  that  such  a  power  exercised  against  polygamy  has 
been  made.  Where  the  power  to  prohibit  slavery  is  denied, 
and  where  the  power  to  prohibit  polygamy  is  granted  to  Con 
gress  by  the  Constitution,  is  a  question  for  constitutional  law 
yers  to  determine.  The  Democratic  party  unanimously  agree 
that  Congress  possesses  no  such  power  to  prohibit  slavery; 
and  Congress  having  no  power  over  one  of  the  "  twin  relics," 


458  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

it  is  yet  to  be  determined  whether  the  party  agree  that  Con 
gress  has  the  power  to  prohibit  the  other  "  twin  relic."  If 
Congress  has  no  power  to  prohibit  slavery,  yet  has  the  power 
to  prohibit  polygamy  or  other  intercourse  between  the  sexes 
unless  sanctioned  by  marriage,  then  Congress  may,  we  presume, 
legislate  upon  the  marriage  relations  to  be  preserved  amongst 
all  the  slaves  who  may  be  taken  to  the  territories,  and  if  Con 
gress  may  legislate  respecting  the  marriage  relations  between 
slaves  in  the  territories,  Congress  will  shortly  find  that,  from 
the  same  source  whence  it  derives  that  authority,  it  can  also 
obtain  the  authority  to  legislate  upon  the  relation  between 
slaves  and  the  white  people,  and  between  slaves  and  their 
owners.  The  ultimate  end  to  which  the  doctrine  of  interven 
tion  by  Congress  with  the  internal  affairs  of  the  people  of  the 
territory  must  lead  is  evident.  It  can  not  be  exercised  in  one 
case  without  necessarily  carrying  with  it  an  expression  of 
authority  to  exercise  it  in  all  cases.  The  only  safe  rule  is  to 
abstain  from  the  exercise  of  all  doubtful  powers  and  to  leave 
the  people  of  the  territories,  as  long  as  they  remain  faithful  to 
their  political  obligations,  alone  to  work  out  their  own  destiny. 
But,  it  may  be  asked,  is  there  no  remedy  for  the  evils  in 
Utah?  Must  these  Mormons  go  on  in  their  works  of  evil 
wholly  unchecked  and  unrestrained  by  any  authority.  To 
these  questions  it  is  only  necessary  to  say  that  polygamy  is 
not  the  only  crime  which  the  Mormons  commit  against  the 
peace,  law,  and  good  order  of  the  republic.  They  set  up  their 
ecclesiastical  government  in  open  and  direct  hostility  to  the 
government  of  the  United  States ;  they  set  up  the  decrees  of 
their  apostles  as  the  "  higher  law,"  which  it  is  their  duty  as 
well  as  their  pleasure  to  obey,  even  when  the  laws  and  their 
obligations  as  citizens  of  the  United  States  require  a  different 
rule  of  government.  In  short,  the  Mormons,  though  living 
upon  the  soil  of  the  United  States,  are  not  of  the  United  States ; 
though  living  nominally  under  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  that  government  is  not  their  government,  but  their 
government  is  another  established  by  themselves,  of  a  social 
and  religious  character,  to  which  they  submit  in  preference  and 
to  the  exclusion  of  all  other  governments.  They  are  a  people 
and  a  government  wholly  independent  in  all  things  of  the  peo 
ple  and  government  of  the  United  States,  and  recognize  no 
authority  on  the  part  of  the  government,  laws  or  Constitution 


UTAH    AND   THE   MORMONS.  459 

of  the  United  States  to  require  of  them  the  performance  of 
any  duty,  or  abstinence  from  any  acts  made  unlawful  by 
United  States  law.  They  are  in  organization,  sentiment  and 
feeling,  as  much  and  as  essentially  aliens  to  the  United  States 
as  if  they  resided  upon  the  plains  of  Asia.  A  territorial  gov 
ernment  was  established  in  1850  for  the  people  of  Utah,  but 
it  was  designed  and  prepared  for  a  people  knowing  no  allegi 
ance  on  earth  save  to  the  American  Union.  It  was  not  in 
tended  for  a  people  who  repudiate  the  Constitution  and  the 
Union,  declare  themselves  free  and  independent  of  United 
States  authority,  and  claim  for  their  apostles  a  power  civil  and 
religious  far  above  that  of  the  Constitution  and  government 
of  the  United  States. 

The  searcher  after  an  appropriate  remedy  for  the  evils  in 
Utah  will  not  find  a  practicable  or  a  sufficient  one  in  the  exer 
cise  of  the  doubtful  power  of  prohibiting  polygamy.  Let  him 
go  further  and  he  will  find  the  primal  cause  for  all  the  abom 
inations  of  Utah,  and  that  cause  is  the  entire  disloyalty  of  the 
people ;  their  utter  repudiation  of  the  American  Constitution 
and  laws,  and  their  total  want  of  political  fidelity.  The  terri 
torial  government  was  designed  for  a  portion  of  the  American 
people ;  the  people  of  Utah  are  not  Americans  in  any  sense 
of  the  word,  they  are  a  distinct  race  and  a  separate  people, 
having  no  relations  with  any  other  race  or  people.  They  are 
a  Mormon  people,  who  bid  defiance  to,  and  hold  in  scorn  and 
contempt,  all  other  people  :  their  government  is  a  Mormon 
government,  having  no  relations  of  any  kind,  much  less 
allegiance  to  any  other  government  on  earth.  The  existing 
territorial  government  is  used  by  these  men  only  to  draw 
money  from  the  Federal  treasury — "  quartering  upon  the  Gen 
tiles" — and  to  cover  up  and  hide  as  far  as  possible  their  enor 
mities.  The  Act  of  Congress  making  polygamy  a  crime  will 
be  treated  as  a  farce.  The  jurors  and  sheriffs  and  witnesses 
must  be  Mormons.  The  party  accused  of  polygamy  must  be 
indicted  by  a1  grand  jury  each  member  of  which  has  from  five 
to  twenty  wives;  he  must  next  be  tried  by  a  jury  each  mem 
ber  of  which  has  a  dozen  wives.  That  will  be  the  practical  ex 
ecution  of  the  act  to  prohibit  one  of  the  twin  relics  of  bar 
barism.  The  barbarians  will  be  the  judges  of  each  other's 
barbarity. 

The  only  practical  remedy  for  these  evils  is  to  treat  these 


460  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

alien  barbarians  as  the  government  would  treat  any  other  na 
tion  of  aliens  who,  settling  upon  American  soil,  would  raise  the 
standard  of  independence,  declare  themselves  a  nation  of  them 
selves,  and  free  of  all  allegiance  to  the  government  or  people 
of  the  United  States.  Since  the  Mormons  will  not  become 
American  citizens,  will  not  subject  themselves  to  American 
laws  and  American  authority,  let  the  territorial  government 
be  abolished;  let  the  Mormons  become  as  all  other  aliens 
would  become,  mere  residents  of  the  territory  which  is  under 
the  exclusive  control  and  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States, 
and  subject  beyond  all  question  to  the  laws  of  Congress. 

As  long  ago  as  June,  1857,  Mr.  Douglas  foresaw  the  evils 
to  result  from  the  persistent  refusal  of  the  Mormons  to  Ameri 
canize  themselves,  and  he  then  proposed  a  remedy  which  time 
has  proved  to  be  the  only  effective  one.  In  his  famous  speech 
at  Springfield,  on  the  12th  of  June,  1857,  after  having  spoken 
of  Kansas  affairs  and  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  he  thus  referred 
to  matters  in  Utah  : 

Mr.  President,  I  will  now  respond  to  the  call  which  has  been  made  upon 
me  for  my  opinion  of  the  condition  of  things  in  Utah,  and  the  appropriate 
remedy  for  existing  evils. 

The  Territory  of  Utah  was  organized  under  one  of  the  acts  known  as  the 
Compromise  measures  of  1850,  on  the  supposition  that  the  inhabitants  were 
American  citizens,  owing  and  acknowledging  allegiance  to  the  United  States, 
and  consequently  entitled  to  the  benefits  of  self-government  while  a  terri 
tory,  and  to  admission  into  the  Union,  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original 
states,  so  soon  as  they  should  number  the  requisite  population.  It  was  con 
ceded  on  all  hands,  and  by  all  parties,  that  the  peculiarities  of  their  religious 
faith  and  ceremonies  interposed  no  valid  and  constitutional  objection  to  their 
reception  into  the  Union,  in  conformity  with  the  federal  Constitution,  so  long 
as  they  were  in  all  other  respects  entitled  to  admission.  Hence  the  great 
political  parties  of  the  country  indorsed  and  approved  the  Compromise  meas 
ures  of  1850,  including  the  act  for  the  organization  of  the  Territory  of  Utah, 
with  the  hope  and  in  the  confidence  that  the  inhabitants  would  conform  to 
the  Constitution  and  laws,  and  prove  themselves  worthy,  respectable  and 
law-abiding  citizens.  If  we  are  permitted  to  place  credence  in  the  rumors 
and  reports  from  that  country  (and  it  must  be  admitted  that  they  have  in 
creased  and  strengthened,  and  assumed  consistency  and  plausibility  by  each 
succeeding  mail),  seven  years'  experience  has  disclosed  a  state  of  facts  en 
tirely  different  from  that  which  was  supposed  to  exist  when  Utah  was  organ 
ized.  These  rumors  and  reports  would  seem  to  justify  the  belief  that  the 
following  facts  are  susceptible  of  proof: 

1st.  That  nine  tenths  of  the  inhabitants  are  aliens  by  birth,  who  have  re 
fused  to  become  naturalized,  or  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance,  or  to  do  any 
other  act  recognizing  the  government  of  the  United  States  as  the  paramount 
authority  in  that  territory. 

2d.  That  all  the  inhabitants,  whether  native  or  alien  born,  known  as  Mor 
mons  (and  they  constitute  the  whole  people  of  the  territory),  are  bound  by 


UTAH    AND   THE   MORMONS.  461 

horrid  oaths  and  terrible  penalties  to  recognize  and  maintain  the  authority  of 
Brigham  Young,  and  the  government  of  which  he  is  the  head,  as  paramount 
to  that  of  the  United  States,  in  civil  as  well  as  religious  affairs ;  and  that 
they  will,  in  due  time,  and  under  the  direction  of  their  leaders,  use  all  means 
in  their  power  to  subvert  the  government  of  the  United  States,  and  resist  its 
authority. 

3d.  That  the  Mormon  government,  with  Brigham  Young  at  its  head,  is 
now  forming  alliances  with  the  Indian  tribes  of  Utah  and  the  adjoining  ter 
ritories — stimulating  the  Indians  to  acts  of  hostility — and  organizing  bauds 
of  his  own  followers,  under  the  name  of  "  Danites  or  Destroying  Angels,"  to 
prosecute  a  system  of  robbery  and  murder  upon  American  citizens,  who  sup 
port  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  and  denounce  the  infamous  and  dis 
gusting  practices  and  institutions  of  the  Mormon  government. 

If,  upon  a  full  investigation,  these  representations  shall  prove  true,  they 
will  establish  the  fact  that  the  inhabitants  of  Utah,  as  a  community,  are  out 
laws  and  alien  enemies,  unfit  to  exercise  the  right  of  self-government  under 
the  organic  act,  and  unworthy  to  be  admitted  into  the  Union  as  a  state, 
when  their  only  object  in  seeking  admission  is  to  interpose  the  sovereignty 
of  the  state  as  an  invincible  shield  to  protect  them  in  their  treason  and 
crime,  debauchery  and  infamy.  (Applause.) 

Under  this  view  of  the  subject,  I  think  it  is  the  duty  of  the  President,  as 
I  have  no  doubt  it  is  his  fixed  purpose,  to  remove  Brigham  Young  and  all 
his  followers  from  office,  and  to  fill  their  places  with  bold,  able,  and  true 
men,  and  to  cause  a  thorough  and  searching  investigation  into  all  the  crimes 
and  enormities  which  are  alleged  to  be  perpetrated  daily  in  that  territory, 
under  the  direction  of  Brigham  Young  and  his  confederates ;  and  to  use  all 
the  military  force  necessary  to  protect  the  officers  in  the  discharge  of  their 
duties,  and  to  enforce  the  laws  of  the  land.  (Applause.) 

When  the  authentic  evidence  shall  arrive,  if  it  shall  establish  the  facts 
which  are  believed  to  exist,  it  will  become  the  duty  of  Congress  to  apply 
the  knife  and  cut  out  this  loathsome,  disgusting  ulcer.  (Applause.)  No 
temporizing  policy — no  half-way  measure  will  then  answer.  It  has  been 
supposed  by  those  who  have  not  thought  deeply  upon  the  subject,  that  an 
act  of  Congress  prohibiting  murder,  robbery,  polygamy,  and  other  crimes, 
with  appropriate  penalties  for  those  offenses,  would  afford  adequate  reme 
dies  for  all  the  enormities  complained  of.  Suppose  such  a  law  to  be  on  the 
statute-book,  and  I  believe  they  have  a  criminal  code,  providing  the  usual 
punishments  for  the  entire  catalogue  of  crimes,  according  to  the  usages  of 
all  civilized  and  Christian  countries,  with  the  exception  of  polygamy,  which 
is  practiced  under  the  sanction  of  the  Mormon  church,  but  is  neither  prohi 
bited  nor  authorized  by  the  laws  of  the  territory. 

Suppose,  I  repeat,  that  Congress  should  pass  a  law  prescribing  a  criminal 
code  and  punishing  polygamy  among  other  offences,  what  effect  would  it 
have — what  good  would  it  do  ?  Would  you  call  on  twenty-three  grand  jury 
men  with  twenty-three  wives  each,  to  find  a  bill  of  indictment  against  a  poor 
miserable  wretch  for  having  two  wives  ?  (Cheers  and  laughter.)  Would 
you  rely  upon  twelve  petit  jurors  with  twelve  wives  each  to  convict  the 
same  loathsome  wretch  for  having  two  wives  ?  (Continued  applause.) 
Would  you  expect  a  grand  jury  composed  of  twenty-three  "  Danites"  to  find 
a  bill  of  indictment  against  a  brother  "Danite"  for  having,  under  their  direc 
tion,  murdered  a  Gentile,  as  they  call  all  American  citizens  ?  Much  less 
would  you  expect  a  jury  of  twelve  "  destroying  angels"  to  find  another  "  de 
stroy  ing  angel"  guilty  of  the  crime  of  murder,  and  cause  him  to  be  hanged 
for  no  other  offense  than  that  of  taking  the  life  of  a  Gentile !  No.  If  there 
is  any  truth  in  the  reports  we  receive  from  Utah,  Congress  may  pass  what 
laws  it  chooses,  but  you  can  never  rely  upon  the  local  tribunals  and  juries 


462  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

to  punish  crimes  committed  by  Mormons  in  that  territory.  Some  other  and 
more  effectual  remedy  must  be  devised  and  applied.  In  my  opinion  the  first 
step  should  be  the  absolute  and  unconditional  repeal  of  the  organic  act — 
blotting  the  territorial  government  out  of  existence — upon  the  ground  that 
they  are  alien  enemies  and  outlaws,  denying  their  allegiance  and  defying 
the  authority  of  the  United  States.  (Immense  applause.) 

The  territorial  government  once  abolished,  the  country  would  revert  to  its 
primitive  condition,  prior  to  the  act  of  1850,  "under  the  sole  and  exclusive 
jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,"  and  should  be  placed  under  the  operation 
of  the  act  of  Congress  of  the  30th  of  April,  1790,  and  the  various  acts  sup 
plemental  thereto  and  amendatory  thereof,  "  providing  for  the  punishment 
of  crimes  against  the  United  States  within  any  fort,  arsenal,  dock-yard, 
magazine,  or  ANY  OTHER  PLACE  OR  DISTRICT  or  COUNTRY,  UNDER  THE  SOLE 
AND  EXCLUSIVE  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States.  All  offenses  against  the 
provisions  of  these  acts  are  required  by  law  to  be  tried  and  punished  by  the 
United  States  courts  in  the  states  or  territories  where  the  offenders  shall  be 
"  FIRST  APPREHENDED  OR  BROUGHT  FOR  TRIAL."  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that, 
under  the  plan  proposed,  Brigham  Young  and  his  confederates  could  be  "  ap 
prehended  and  brought  for  trial"  to  Iowa  or  Missouri,  California  or  Oregon, 
or  to  any  other  adjacent-  state  or  territory,  where  a  fair  trial  could  be  had, 
and  justice  administered  impartially — where  the  witnesses  could  be  protected 
and  the  judgment  of  the  court  could  be  carried  into  execution,  without  vio 
lence  or  intimidation.  I  do  not  propose  to  introduce  any  new  principles  into 
our  jurisprudence,  nor  to  change  the  modes  of  proceeding  or  the  rules  of 
practice  in  our  courts.  I  only  propose  to  place  the  district  of  country  em 
braced  within  the  territory  of  Utah  under  the  operation  of  the  same  laws 
and  rules  of  proceeding  that  Kansas,  Nebraska,  Minnesota,  and  our  other  ter 
ritories  were  placed,  before  they  became  organized  territories.  The  whole 
country  embraced  within  those  territories  was  under  the  operation  of  that 
same  system  of  laws,  and  all  the  offenses  committed  within  the  same  were 
punished  in  the  manner  now  proposed,  so  long  as  the  country  remained 
"  under  the  sole  and  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States ;"  but  the 
moment  the  country  was  organized  into  territorial  governments,  with  legis 
lative,  executive  and  judicial  departments,  it  ceased  to  be  under  the  sole  and 
exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  within  the  meaning  of  the  act  of 
Congress,  for  the  reason  that  it  had  passed  under  another  and  different  juris 
diction.  Hence,  if  we  abolish  the  territorial  government  of  Utah,  preserving 
all  existing  rights,  and  place  the  country  under  the  sole  and  exclusive  juris 
diction  of  the  United  States,  offenders  can  be  apprehended,  and  brought  into 
the  adjacent  states  or  territories,  for  trial  and  punishment,  in  the  same  man 
ner  and  under  the  same  rules  and  regulations,  which  obtained,  and  have 
been  uniformly  practiced,  under  like  circumstances  since  1790. 

If  the  plan  proposed  shall  be  found  an  effective  and  adequate  remedy  for 
the  evils  complained  of  in  Utah,  no  one,  no  matter  what  his  political  creed  or 
partizan  associations,  need  be  apprehensive  that  it  will  violate  any  cherished 
theory  or  constitutional  right  in  regard  to  the  government  of  the  territories. 
It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  all  the  territory  or  land  belonging  to  the 
United  States  must  necessarily  be  governed  by  the  same  laws  and  under  the 
same  clause  of  the  Constitution,  without  reference  to  the  purpose  to  which  it 
is  dedicated  or  the  use  which  it  is  proposed  to  make  of  it.  "While  all  that 
portion  of  country  which  is  or  shall  be  set  apart  to  become  new  States,  must 
necessarily  be  governed  under  and  consistent  with  that  clause  of  the  Consti 
tution  which  authorizes  Congress  to  admit  new  states,  it  does  not  follow  that 
other  territory,  not  intended  to  be  organized  and  admitted  into  the  Union  as 
states,  must  be  governed  under  the  same  clause  of  the  Constitution,  with  all 
the  rights  of  self-government  and  state  equality.  For  instance,  if  we  should 


UTAH    AND   THE   MORMONS.  463 

purchase  Vancouver's  Island  from  Great  Britain,  for  the  purpose  of  removing 
all  the  Indians  from  our  Pacific  territories,  and  locating  them  on  that  island, 
as  their  permanent  home,  with  guarantees  that  it  should  never  be  settled  or 
occupied  by  white  men,  will  it  be  contended  that  the  purchase  should  be 
made  and  the  island  governed  under  the  power  to  admit  new  states,  when 
it  was  not  acquired  for  that  purpose,  or  intended  to  be  applied  to  that  ob 
ject  ?  Being  acquired  for  Indian  purposes,  is  it  not  more  reasonable  to  as 
sume  that  the  power  to  acquire  was  derived  from  the  Indian  clause,  and  the 
island  must  necessarily  be  governed  under  and  consistent  with  that  clause 
of  the  Constitution  which  relates  to  Indian  affairs.  Again,  suppose  wo 
deem  it  expedient  to  buy  a  small  island  in  the  Mediterranean  or  Caribbean 
sea.,  for  a  naval  station,  can  it  be  said,  with  any  force  or  plausibility,  that  the 
purchase  should  be  made  or  the  island  governed  under  the  power  to  admit 
new  states?  On  the  contrary,  is  it  not  obvious  that  the  right  to  acquire  and 
govern  in  that  case  is  derived  from  the  power  "  to  provide  and  maintain  a 
navy,"  and  must  be  exercised  consistent  with  that  power?  So,  if  we  pur 
chase  land  for  forts,  arsenals,  or  other  military  purposes,  or  set  apart  and 
dedicate  any  territory  which  we  now  own  for  a  military  reservation,  it  imme 
diately  passes  under  the  military  power,  and  must  be  governed  in  harmony 
with  it.  So,  if  land  be  purchased  for  a  mint,  it  must  be  governed  under  the  power 
to  coin  money;  or  if  purchased  for  a  post-office,  it  must  be  governed  under 
the  power  to  establish  post-offices  and  post-roads ;  or  for  a  custom-house, 
under  the  power  to  regulate  commerce  ;  or  for  a  court-house,  under  the  ju 
diciary  power.  In  short,  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  under  which  ^any 
land  or  territory  belonging  to  the  United  States  must  be  governed,  is  indi 
cated  by  the  object  for  which  it  was  acquired  and  the  object  to  which  it  is 
dedicated.  So  long,  therefore,  as  the  organic  act  of  Utah  shall  remain  in 
force,  setting  apart  that  country  for  a  new  state,  and  pledging  the  faith  of 
the  United  States  to  receive  it  into  the  Union  as  soon  as  it  should  have  the 
requisite  population,  we  are  bound  to  extend  to  it  all  the  rights  of  self-gov 
ernment,  agreeably  to  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  providing  for  the  admis 
sion  of  new  states.  Hence  the  necessity  of  repealing  the  organic  act, 
withdrawing  the  pledge  of  admission,  and  placing  it  under  the  sole  and  ex 
clusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  in  order  that  persons  and  property 
may  be  protected,  and  justice  administered,  and  crimes  punished  under  the 
laws  prescribed  by  Congress  in  such  cases. 

While  the  power  of  Congress  to  repeal  the  organic  act  and  abolish  the  ter 
ritorial  government  cannot  be  denied,  the  question  may  arise  whether  we 
possess  the  moral  right  of  exercising  the  power,  after  the  charter  has  been 
once  granted,  and  the  local  government  organized  under  its  provisions.  This 
is  a  grave  question — one  which  should  not  be  decided  hastily,  nOr  under  the 
influence  of  passion  or  prejudice.  In  my  opinion,  I  am  free  to  say  there  is 
no  moral  right  to  repeal  the  organic  act  of  a  territory,  and  abolish  the  gov 
ernment  organized  under  it,  unless  the  inhabitants  of  that  territory,  as  a  com 
munity,  have  done  such  acts  as  amount  to  a  forfeiture  of  all  rights  under  it — 
such  as  becoming  alien  enemies,  outlaws,  disavowing  their  allegiance,  or  re 
sisting  the  authority  of  the  United  States.  These  and  kindred  acts,  which 
we  have  every  reason  to  believe  are  daily  perpetrated  in  that  territory, 
would  not  only  give  us  the  moral  right,  but  make  it  our  imperative  duty  to 
abolish  the  territorial  government,  and  place  the  inhabitants  under  the  sole 
and  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  to  the  end  that  justice  may 
be  done,  and  the  dignity  and  authority  of  the  government  vindicated. 

I  have  thus  presented  plainly  and  frankly  my  views  of  the  Utah  question — 
the  evils  and  the  remedy — upon  the  facts  as  they  have  reached  us,  and  are 
supposed  to  be  substantially  corre.ct.  If  official  reports  and  authentic  infor 
mation  shall  change  or  modify  these  facts,  I  shall  be  ready  to  conform  my 


464  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

action  to  the  real  facts  as  they  shall  be  found  to  exist.  I  have  no  such  pride 
of  opinion  as  will  induce  me  to  persevere  in  an  error  one  moment  after  my 
judgment  is  convinced.  If,  therefore,  a  better  plan  can  be  devised — one 
more  consistent  with  justice  and  sound  policy,  or  more  effective  as  a  remedy 
for  acknowledged  evils,  I  will  take  great  pleasure  in  adopting  it,  in  lieu  of 
the  one  I  have  presented  to  you  to-night. 

In  conclusion,  permit  me  to  present  my  grateful  acknowledgements  for 
your  patient  attention,  and  the  kind  and  respectful  manner  in  which  you 
have  received  my  remarks. 

Had  the  remedy  thus  indicated  by  Mr.  Douglas  in  1857  been 
adopted  in  place  of  the  "  war  measures,"  to-day  the  Mormons 
would  have  been  divested  of  that  political  government  which 
serves  them  merely  to  carry  out  more  fully  their  treasonable 
and  disgusting  enormities.  To  that  remedy  the  government 
must  come  at  last,  and  with  a  new  government  in  the  gold  re 
gions,  the  Mormons  will  eventually  be  forced  either  to  leave 
the  country  or  reform  their  code  of  civil  and  political  morals 
to  a  standard  more  becoming  the  age,  and  more  suitable  to  the 
enlightenment  of  the  people  of  the  United  States. 

MINNESOTA   AND    OEEGON. 

Pending  the  Lecompton  controversy  in  Congress,  the  Pres 
ident  on  the  llth  day  of  January,  1858,  communicated  to  Con 
gress  copies  of  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Minnesota,  and 
an  application  for  admission  into  the  Union.  It  was  referred 
in  the  Senate  to  the  Committee  on  Territories.  On  the  26th 
of  the  same  month  Mr.  Douglas  reported  a  bill  for  the  admis 
sion  of  the  State.  He  was  indefatigable  in  his  efforts  to  have 
the  bill  taken  up,  but  it  was  not  until  after  the  Kansas  bill  had 
passed  that  he  could  succeed.  Eventually  the  bill  was  taken 
up,  and  passed  with  but  very  little  objection.  The  vote  in  the 
Senate  being,  yeas,  49 ;  nays,  3  ;  and  in  the  House,  yeas,  157  ; 
nays,  38. 

On  the  5th  of  April  Mr.  Douglas,  from  the  Committee,  on 
Territories,  reported  a  bill  for  the  admission  of  Oregon  into 
the  Union  as  a  State.  On  the  18th  of  May,  the  bill  having 
been  debated  in  the  meantime,  and  the  principal  objection  urged 
was  that  of  Mr.  Trumbull,  that  the  Constitution  of  the  State 
prohibited  the  immigration  of  negroes,  the  question  was  taken 
on  Trumbull's  motion  to  postpone  the  bill  till  next  session. 
This  motion  was  rejected,  the  yeas  being,  Bell,  Chandler,  Clay, 
Crittenden,  Durkee,  Fessenden,  Fitzuatrick,  Hale,  Hamlin, 


THE   AFRICAN   SLAVE  TRADE.  465 

Hammond,  Hunter,  Iverson,  Kennedy,  Mason,  Trumbull  and 
Wade.  Democrats  6,  Republicans  7,  Americans  3.  The  bill 
then  passed,  yeas  35  ;  nays  17 ;  the  nays  being  the  same  who 
voted  to  postpone,  excepting  Mr.  Chandler,  and  with  the  addi 
tion  of  Mr.  Davis,  of  Mississippi,  and  Mr.  Henderson,  of  Texas. 
The  House  did  not  act  on  the  bill  until  the  next  session,  when 
the  bill  was  passed,  and  Oregon  was  admitted. 

At  this  point  it  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  recapitulate  the 
action  of  Mr.  Douglas  upon  the  subject  of  territorial  bills, 
and  the  admission  of  new  states.  When  a  member  of  the 
house  he  was  a  warm  supporter  of  the  bills  to  establish  a  ter 
ritorial  government  in  Oregon.  He  found  that  measure  un 
acted  upon  when  he  entered  the  Senate.  He  voted  for  it  there 
when  it  passed.  He,  as  a  member  of  the  house,  supported  the 
resolutions  for  the  annexation  of  Texas,  and  the  bill  for  her 
admission  into  the  Union.  In  the  house  he  supported  and 
voted  for  the  bills  admitting  Iowa  and  Florida  as  states  of  the 
Union.  On  the  latter  bill  he  made  one  of  his  most  forcible 
speeches  on  a  proposal  that  Florida  be  required  as  a  condition 
of  her  admission  to  abolish  a  provision  in  her  Constitution  lim 
iting  the  authority  for  emancipating  slaves.  He  denied  the 
right  or  power  of  Congress  to  legislate  upon  the  provisions  of 
any  constitution  adopted  by  a  state.  He  reported  the  several 
bills  respecting  the  admission  of  Wisconsin,  and  voted  for  the 
admission  of  that  state.  He  wrote  the  bills  establishing  the 
territorial  governments  of  Utah,  ISTew  Mexico,  Washington, 
Kansas,  Minnesota  and  Nebraska.  He  prepared  the  acts  for 
the  admission  of  California,  Minnesota,  and  Oregon,  into  the 
Union  as  states. 

THE   AFRICAN   SLAVE   TRADE. 

Mr.  Douglas  has  always  been  decided  in  his  opposition  to  the 
revival  of  the  African  slave  trade.  He  has  been  always  as  de 
cided  in  his  efforts  to  enforce  the  existing,  and  willing  to  pro 
vide  additional  laws  if  necessary  against  that  traffic.  When 
this  matter  was  discussed  some  time  ago,  Mr.  Douglas,  in  an 
swer  to  a  letter  from  a  gentleman  in  Virginia,  thus  expressed 
his  views : 

WASHINGTON,  August  2,  1859. 
Col.  John  L.  Peyton,  Staunton,  Va-: 

MY  DEAR  SIR  :  You  do  me  no  more  than  justice  in  your  kind  letter,  for 
which  accept  my  thanks,  in  assuming  that  I  do  not  concur  with  the  admin- 

U2 


466  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A   DOUGLAS. 

istration  in  their  views  respecting  the  rights  of  naturalized  citizens,  as  denned 
in  the  "  Le  Clerc  letter,"  which,  it  is  proper  to  observe,  has  since  been  ma 
terially  modified. 

Under  our  Constitution  there  can  be  no  just  distinction  between  the  rights 
of  native  born  and  naturalized  citizens  to  claim  the  protection  of  our  gov 
ernment  at  home  and  abroad.  Unless  the  naturalization  releases  the  person 
naturalized  from  all  obligations  which  he  owed  to  his  native  country,  by 
virtue  of  his  allegiance,  it  leaves  him  in  the  sad  predicament  of  owing  al 
legiance  to  two  countries,  without  receiving  protection  from  either — a  di 
lemma  in  which  no  American  citizen  should  be  placed. 

Neither  have  you  misapprehended  my  opinions  in  respect  to  the  African 
slave  trade.  That  question  seriously  disturbed  the  harmony  of  the  Conven 
tion  which  framed  the  federal  Constitution.  Upon  it  the  delegates  divided 
into  two  parties,  under  circumstances  which,  for  a  time,  rendered  harmoni 
ous  action  hopeless.  The  one  demanded  the  instant  and  unconditional  pro 
hibition  of  the  Afiican  slave  trade,  on  moral  and  religious  grounds,  while 
the  other  insisted  that  it  was  a  legitimate  commerce,  involving  no  other  con 
sideration  than  a  sound  public  policy,  which  each  state  ought  to  be  per 
mitted  to  determine  for  itself,  so  long  as  it  was  sanctioned  by  its  own  laws. 
Each  party  stood  resolutely  and  firmly  by  its  own  position,  until  both  became 
convinced  that  this  vexed  question  would  break  up  the  Convention,  destroy 
the  federal  Union,  blot  out  the  glories  of  the  Revolution,  and  throw  away  all 
its  blessings,  unless  some  fair  and  just  compromise  could  be  formed  on  the 
common  ground  of  such  mutual  concessions  as  were  indispensable  to  the 
preservation  of  their  liberties,  Union,  and  independence. 

Such  a  compromise  was  effected  and  incorporated  into  the  Constitution, 
by  which  it  was  understood  that  the  African  slave  trade  might  continue  a 
legitimate  commerce  in  those  states  whose  laws  sanctioned  it  until  the  year 
1808,  from  and  after  which  time  Congress  might  and  would  prohibit  it  for 
ever,  throughout  the  dominion  and  limits  of  the  United  States,  and  pass  all 
laws  which  might  become  necessary  to  make  such  prohibition  effectual. 
The  harmony  of  the  Convention  was  restored,  and  the  Union  saved  by  this 
compromise,  without  which  the  Constitution  could  never  have  been  made. 

I  stand  firmly  by  this  compromise  and  by  all  the  other  compromises  of 
the  Constitution,  and  shall  use  my  best  efforts  to  carry  each  and  all  of  them 
into  faithful  execution,  in  the  sense  and  with  the  understanding  in  which 
they  were  originally  adopted.  In  accordance  with  this  compromise,  T  am 
irreconcilably  opposed  to  the  revival  of  the  African  slave  trade,  in  any  form 
and  under  any  circumstances. 

am,  with  great  respect,  yours  truly, 

S.  A.  DOUGLAS. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

THE   CINCINNATI   PLATFOKM. 

AT  no  period  of  his  life  did  Mr.  Douglas  experience  more 
anxiety  than  just  previous  to  the  assembling  of  the  Cincinnati 
Convention.  This  anxiety  was  not  produced  by  any  anticipa 
tions  as  to  the  action  of  that  body  respecting  his  nomination 
for  the  presidency.  He  had,  in  obedience  to  an  established 
and  recognized  principle  of  the  party,  introduced  and  carried 


THE   CINCINNATI   PLATFORM.  467 

through  Congress  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  including  the  re 
peal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  That  act  had  failed  to  com 
mand  the  votes  of  a  large  body  of  the  Democratic  representa 
tives  in  Congress.  It  had  been  met  by  a  fierce  and  unrelent 
ing  combination  in  the  northern  states,  against  which  the 
Democracy,  except  in  a  few  isolated  cases,  had  been  unable  to 
stand.  The  elections  of  1854-5  had  been  most  disastrous,  and 
the  thousands  who  regard  present  defeat  as  more  fatal  than 
the  ultimate  and  successful  establishment  of  a  right  principle 
heaped  upon  him  their  denunciations.  His  anxiety  was  lest 
the  timid  and  temporizing  would  endeavor  in  that  Convention 
to  avoid  or  oppose  a  clear  and  unequivocal  endorsement  of  the 
great  principle  of  self-government  and  non-interference  by 
Congress  with  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  territories.  When 
that  Convention  met,  and  when  the  representatives  of  the  De 
mocracy  of  all  the  states,  without  a  dissenting  voice,  indorsed 
that  great  act  of  legislation,  and  proclaimed  that  thenceforth 
Congress  washed  its  hands  of  all  interference  with  the  domes 
tic  affairs  of  the  people  of  the  territories — those  inchoate  states, 
as  President  Pierce  styled  them — all  anxiety  was  removed,  and 
once  more  he  had  the  assurance  of  the  Democracy  that  his 
adherence  to  the  cause  of  right  and  truth  had  received,  as 
well  it  had  merited,  the  approbation  of  the  Democracy  of  the 
nation. 

There  never  was  a  platform  of  the  Democracy  that  com 
mended  itself  more  generally  to  the  approval  of  the  people  than 
that  adopted  at  Cincinnati.  It  commanded  the  approbation 
of  at  least  one  half  of  the  Republican  party  at  the  North.  The 
latter,  however,  could  not  be  induced  to  believe  that  the  De 
mocracy  would  carry  out  that  platform  in  good  faith.  The 
action  of  the  Lecompton  Convention,  the  propositions  for  a 
revival  of  the  slave  trade,  and  for  a  slave  code  for  the  territo 
ries,  have  not  had  the  effect  to  remove  the  doubts  previously 
entertained  by  those  who  questioned  the  honesty  of  the  inten 
tions  of  those  who  adopted  the  Cincinnati  platform.  The 
only  way  in  which  these  doubts  can  ever  be  removed,  and  the 
people  of  the  northwest  again  united  under  a  common  organ 
ization  for  the  protection  and  security  of  the  Constitution  and 
the  Union,  is  by  placing  the  administration  of  that  platform  in 
the  hands  of  a  man  who  is  known  to  entertain-  for  it  a  devotion 
and  an  affection  unequalled  by  that  of  any  other  person.  A  good 


468  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

platform  with  candidates  whose  political  fidelity  is  not  estab 
lished  in  the  minds  of  the  people  is  one  thing,  and  a  very  dif 
ferent  thing  from  the  same  platform  with  candidates  who  are 
known  to  the  people  as  men  who,  at  all  hazards,  and  under  all 
circumstances,  will  stand  by  principle,  and  never,  even  to  court 
popular  favor,  abandon  the  established  doctrines  of  free  consti 
tutional  government. 

Since  June,  1856,  Mr.  Douglas  has  been  unremitting  in  his 
defense  of  that  platform.  He  stands  upon  it  now,  and  clings 
to  it  as  the  best  exposition  of  political  faith  ever  produced  in 
the  United  States  since  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution ;  and, 
when  fairly  executed,  the  safest  and  only  reliable  chart  for  avoid 
ing  those  calamities  that  must  ever  attend  any  Federal  legisla 
tion  repecting  African  slavery.  It  is  the  best  and  most  com 
prehensive  declaration  of  the  rights  of  the  States  that  has  ever 
been  put  in  form,  and  there  can  be  no  violation  of  that  plat 
form  that  does  not  equally  violate  the  vested  and  constitutional 
rights  of  the  states  of  the  Confederacy. 

To  the  support  and  maintenance  of  that  platform  he  has 
devoted  much  of  his  time,  and  expended  his  health  and  per 
sonal  labor.  In  1856,  after  its  adoption,  the  Democratic 
National  Committee  at  Washington  regarded  his  report  made 
upon  Kansas  affairs,  on  March  12th  preceding,  such  an  admir 
able  epitome  of  the  principles  of  the  Democracy,  subsequently 
asserted  in  the  Cincinnati  platform,  that  they  had  no  less  than 
three  hundred  thousand  copies  of  it  printed  and  circulated. 
The  doctrines  of  that  report  were  then  deemed  the  best  kind 
of  Democracy,  although  they  declared  that  no  law  or  state 
government  should  be  forced  upon  the  people  that  did  not 
receive  a  sanction  from  these  people. 

In  the  defense  of  the  Cincinnati  platform  all  questions  were 
narrowed  down  to  the  one — the  great  fundamental  principle 
of  the  right  of  the  people  of  every  distinct  political  community, 
which  may  be  loyal  to  the  Constitution,  to  regulate  their  own 
domestic  affairs  and  local  institutions,  free  of  all  interference 
by  other  states,  or  by  the  Federal  government,  and  subject  to 
no  other  restraint  than  may  exist  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  In  the  defense  of  this  principle  Mr.  Douglas, 
during  the  recess  of  1859,  prepared  an  elaborate  essay,  which 
was  published  in  the  September  number  of  Harpers  New 
Monthly  Magazine.  It  had  not  only  the  extensive  circula- 


THE   CINCINNATI   PLATFORM.  469 

tion  of  that  popular  publication,  but  soon  found  its  way  through 
an  extra  or  supplemental  edition,  in  pamphlet  form,  to  all  parts 
of  the  country.  It  was  also  published  extensively  in  the  pub 
lic  journals.  We  are  authorized  by  Messrs.  Harper  &  Brothers 
to  republish  that  argument  in  this  volume.  It  was  as  follows  : 

THE  DIVIDING  LINE  BETWEEN  FEDERAL  AND  LOCAL  AUTHORITY. 

[Reprinted  from  Harper's  Magazine,  September,  1859.] 

Under  our  complex  system  of  government  it  is  the  first  duty  of  American 
statesmen  to  mark  distinctly  the  dividing  line  between  federal  and  local  au 
thority.  To  do  this  with  accuracy  involves  an  inquiry,  not  only  into  the 
powers  and  duties  of  the  federal  government  under  the  Constitution,  but 
also  into  the  rights,  privileges,  and  immunities  of  the  people  of  the  territories, 
as  well  as  of  the  states  composing  the  Union.  The  relative  powers  and 
functions  of  the  federal  and  state  governments  have  become  well  understood 
and  clearly  defined  by  their  practical  operation  and  harmonious  action  for  a 
long  series  of  years ;  while  the  disputed  question — involving  the  right  of  the 
people  of  the  territories  to  govern  themselves  in  respect  to  their  local  affairs 
and  internal  polity — remains  a  fruitful  source  of  partisan  strife  and  sectional 
controversy.  The  political  organization  which  was  formed  in  1854,  and  has 
assumed  the  name  of  the  Republican  party,  is  based  on  the  theory  that  Af 
rican  slavery,  as  it  exists  in  this  country,  is  an  evil  of  such  magnitude — social, 
moral,  and  political — as  to  justify  and  require  the  exertion  of  the  entire 
power  and  influence  of  the  federal  government  to  the  full  extent  that  the 
Constitution,  according  to  their  interpretation,  will  permit  for  its  ultimate 
extinction.  In  the  platform  of  principles  adopted  at  Philadelphia  by  the 
Republican  National  Convention  in  1856,  it  is  affirmed: 

"  That  the  Constitution  confers  upon  Congress  sovereign  power  over  the 
territories  of  the  United  States  for  their  government,  and  that  in  the  exercise 
of  this  power  it  is  both  the  right  and  the  duty  of  Congress  to  prohibit  in  the 
territories  those  twin  relics  of  barbarism,  polygamy  and  slavery." 

According  to  the  theory  of  the  Republican  party  there  is  an  irrepressible 
conflict  between  freedom  and  slavery,  free  labor  and  slave  labor,  free  states 
and  slave  states,  which  is  irreconcilable,  and  must  continue  to  rage  with  in 
creasing  fury  until  the  one  shall  become  universal  by  the  annihilation  of  the 
other.  In  the  language  of  the  most  eminent  and  authoritative  expounder 
of  their  political  faith, 

"  It  is  an  irrepressible  conflict  between  opposing  and  enduring  forces  ;  and 
it  means  that  the  United  States  must  and  will,  sooner  or  later,  become  either 
entirely  a  slaveholding  nation  or  entirely  a  free-labor  nation.  Either  the 
cotton  and  rice  fields  of  South  Carolina,  and  the  sugar  plantations  of  Louisi 
ana  will  ultimately  be  tilled  by  free  labor,  and  Charleston  and  New  Orleans 
become  marts  for  legitimate  merchandise  alone,  or  else  the  rye  fields  and 
wheat  fields  of  Massachusetts  and  New  York  must  again  be  surrendered  by 
their  farmers  to  slave  culture  and  to  the  production  of  slaves,  and  Boston  and 
New  York  become  once  more  markets  for  trade  in  the  bodies  and  souls  of 
men." 

In  the  Illinois  canvass  of  1858  the  same  proposition  was  advocated  and 
defended  by  the  distinguished  Republican  standard-bearer  in  these  words  : 

"  In  my  opinion  it  [the  slavery  agitation]  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall 
have  been  reached  and  passed.  '  A  house  divided  against  itself  can  not 
stand.'  I  believe  this  government  can  not  endure  permanently  half  slave 


470  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall,  but  I  do  expect  it  will 
cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other.  Either 
the  opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it 
where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ulti 
mate  extinction,  or  its  advocates  will  push  forward  till  it  shall  become  alike 
lawful  in  all  the  States — old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as  South." 

Thus  it  will  be  seen,  that  under  the  auspices  of  a  political  party,  which 
claims  sovereignty  in  Congress  over  the  subject  of  slavery,  there  can  be  no 
peace  on  the  slavery  question — no  truce  in  the  sectional  strife — no  fraternity 
between  the  North  and  South,  so  long  as  this  Union  remains  as  our  fathers 
made  it — divided  into  free  and  slave  states,  with  the  right  on  the  part  of 
each  to  retain  slavery  so  long  as  it  chooses,  and  to  abolish  it  whenever  it 
pleases. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  would  be  uncandid  to  deny  that,  while  the  Demo 
cratic  party  is  a  unit  in  its  irreconcilable  opposition  to  the  doctrines  and 
principles  of  the  Republican  party,  there  are  radical  differences  of  opinion 
in  respect  to  the  powers  and  duties  of  Congress,  and  the  rights  and  immuni 
ties  of  the  people  of  the  territories  under  the  Federal  Constitution,  which 
seriously  disturb  its  harmony  and  threaten  its  integrity.  These  differences 
of  opinion  arise  from  the  different  interpretations  placed  upon  the  Constitution 
by  persons  who  belong  to  one  of  the  following  classes : 

First. — Those  who  believe  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  nei 
ther  establishes  or  prohibits  slavery  in  the  states  or  territories  beyond  the 
power  of  the  people  legally  to  control  it,  but  "  but  leaves  the  people  thereof 
perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own 
way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

Second. — Those  who  believe  that  the  Constitution  establishes  slavery  in 
the  territories,  and  withholds  from  Congress  and  the  territorial  Legislature 
the  power  to  control  it ;  and  who  insist  that,  in  the  event  the  territorial  Leg 
islature  fails  to  enact  the  requisite  laws  for  its  protection,  it  becomes  the 
imperative  duty  of  Congress  to  interpose  its  authority  and  furnish  such  pro 
tection. 

Third. — Those  who,  while  professing  to  believe  that  the  Constitution  es 
tablishes  slavery  in  the  territories  beyond  the  power  of  Congress  or  the 
territorial  Legislature  to  control  it,  at  the  same  time  protest  against  the  duty 
of  Congress  to  interfere  for  its  protection ;  but  insist  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  Judiciary  to  protect  and  maintain  slavery  in  the  territories  without  any 
law  upon  the  subject. 

By  a  careful  examination  of  the  second  and  third  propositions,  it  will  be 
Been  that  the  advocates  of  each  agree  on  the  theoretical  question,  that  the 
Constitution  establishes  slavery  in  the  territories,  and  compels  them  to  have 
it  whether  they  want  it  or  not ;  and  differ  on  the  practical  point,  whether  a 
right  secured  by  the  Constitution  shall  be  protected  by  an  act  of  Congress 
when  ah1  other  remedies  fail.  The  reason  assigned  for  not  protecting  by  law 
a  right  secured  by  the  Constitution  is,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  courts  to 
protect  slavery  in  the  territories  without  any  legislation  upon  the  subject. 
How  the  courts  are  to  afford  protection  to  slaves  or  any  other  property, 
where  there  is  no  law  providing  remedies  and  imposing  penalties  and  con 
ferring  jurisdiction  upon  the  courts  to  hear  and  determine  the  cases  as  they 
arise,  remains  to  be  explained. 

The  acts  of  Congress,  establishing  the  several  territories  of  the  United 
States,  provide  that:  "The  jurisdiction  of  the  several  courts  herein  pro 
vided  for,  both  appellate  and  original,  and  that  of  the  Probate  Courts  and 
Justices  of  the  Peace,  shall  be  as  limited  by  law" — meaning  such  laws  as 
the  territorial  Legislatures  shall  from  tune  to  time  enact.  It  will  be  seen 
that  the  judicial  tribunals  of  the  territories  have  just  such  jurisdiction,  and 


THE   CINCINNATI    PLATFORM.  471 

only  such,  in  respect  to  the  rights  of  persons  and  property  pertaining  to  the 
citizens  of  the  territory  as  the  territorial  Legislature  shall  see  fit  to  confer ; 
and  consequently,  that  the  courts  can  afford  protection  to  persons  and  prop 
erty  no  further  than  the  Legislature  shall,  by  law,  confer  the  jurisdiction, 
and  prescribe  the  remedies,  penalties,  and  modes  of  proceeding. 

It  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  any  person  who  believes  that  the  Constitu 
tion  confers  the  right  of  protection  in  the  enjoyment  of  slave  property  in 
the  territories,  regardless  of  the  wishes  of  the  people  and  of  the  action  of 
the  territorial  Legislature,  can  satisfy  his  conscience  and  his  oath  of  fidelity 
to  the  Constitution  in  withholding  such  Congressional  legislation  as  may  be 
essential  to  the  enjoyment  of  such  right  under  the  Constitution.  Under 
this  view  of  the  subject  it  is  impossible  to  resist  the  conclusion  that,  if  the 
Constitution  does  establish  slavery  in  the  territories,  beyond  the  power  of 
the  people  to  control  it  by  law,  it  is  the  imperative  duty  of  Congress  to  sup 
ply  all  the  legislation  necessary  for  its  protection ;  and  if  this  proposition  is 
not  true,  it  necessarily  results  that  the  Constitution  neither  establishes  nor 
prohibits  slavery  any  where,  but  leaves  the  people  of  each  state  and  territory 
entirely  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  affairs  to  suit  themselves, 
without  the  intervention  of  Congress  or  of  any  other  power  whatsoever. 

But  it  is  urged  with  great  plausibility  by  those  who  have  entire  faith  in 
the  soundness  of  the  proposition,  that  "  a  territory  is  the  mere  creature  of 
Congress ;  that  the  creature  can  not  be  clothed  with  any  powers  not  pos 
sessed  by  the  creator  ;  and  that  Congress,  not  possessing  the  power  to  legis 
late  in  respect  to  African  slavery  in  the  territories,  can  not  delegate  to  a 
territorial  Legislature  any  power  which  it  does  not  itself  possess." 

This  proposition  is  as  plausible  as  it  is  fallacious.  But  the  reverse  of  it  is 
true  as  a  general  rule.  Congress  can  not  delegate  to  a  territorial  Legislature, 
or  to  any  other  body  of  men  whatsoever,  any  power  which  the  Constitution 
has  vested  in  Congress.  In  other  words :  Every  power  conferred  on  Congress 
by  the  Constitution  must  be  exercised  by  Congress  in  the  mode  prescribed  in  the 
Constitution. 

Let  us  test  the  correctness  of  this  proposition  by  reference  to  the  powers 
of  Congress  as  defined  in  the  Constitution  : 

'  The  Congress  shall  have  power — 

'  To  lay  and  collect  taxes,  duties,  imposts,  and  excises,"  etc. ; 

'  To  borrow  money  on  the  credit  of  the  United  States  ;" 

'  To  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations,"  etc. ; 

'  To  establish  a  uniform  rule  of  naturalization,"  etc. ; 

'  To  coin  money,  and  regulate  the  value  thereof;" 

'  To  establish  post-offices  and  post-roads ;" 

'  To  constitute  tribunals  inferior  to  the  Supreme  Court ;" 

'To  declare  war,"  etc. ; 

1  To  provide  and  maintain  a  navy." 

The  list  might  be  extended  so  as  to  embrace  all  the  powers  conferred  on 
Congress  by  the  Constitution ;  but  enough  has  been  cited  to  test  the  principle. 
"Will  it  be  contended,  that  Congress  can  delegate  any  one  of  these  powers  to  a 
territorial  Legislature  or  to  any  tribunal  whatever  ?  Can  Congress  delegate 
to  Kansas  the  power  to  " regulate  commerce,"  or  to  Nebraska  the  power  "to 
establish  uniform  rules  of  naturalization,"  or  to  Illinois  the  power  "  to  coin 
money  and  regulate  the  value  thereof,"  or  to  Virginia  the  power  "to  estab 
lish  post-offices  and  post-roads  ?" 

The  mere  statement  of  the  question  carries  with  it  the  emphatic  answer, 
that  Congress  can  not  delegate  any  power  which  it  does  possess ;  but  that 
every  power  conferred  on  Congress  by  the  Constitution  must  be  exercised  by 
Congress  in  the  manner  prescribed  in  that  instrument. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  cases  in  which  Congress  may  establish  tribu- 


472  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN  A.   DOUGLAS. 

nals  and  local  governments,  and  invest  them  with  powers  which  Congress 
does  not  possess  and  can  not  exercise  under  the  Constitution.  For  instance, 
Congress  may  establish  courts  inferior  to  the  Supreme  Court,  and  confer  upon 
them  the  power  to  hear  and  determine  causes,  and  render  judgments  affecting 
the  life,  liberty,  and  property  of  the  citizen,  without  itself  having  the  power 
to  hear  and  determine  such  causes,  render  judgments,  or  revise  or  annul  the 
same.  In  like  manner  Congress  may  institute  governments  for  the  territories, 
composed  of  an  executive,  judicial,  and  legislative  department ;  and  may  con 
fer  upon  the  governor  ah1  the  executive  powers  and  functions  of  the  territory, 
without  having  the  right  to  exercise  any  one  of  those  powers  or  functions 
itself. 

Congress  may  confer  upon  the  judicial  department  all  the  judicial  powers 
and  functions  of  the  territory,  without  having  the  right  to  hear  and  determine 
a  cause,  or  render  a  judgment,  or  to  revise  or  annul  any  decision  made  by  the 
courts  so  established  by  Congress.  Congress  may  also  confer  upon  the  legis 
lative  department  of  the  territory  certain  legislative  powers  which  it  can  not 
itself  exercise,  and  only  such  as  Congress  can  not  exercise  under  the  Constitu 
tion.  The  powers  which  Congress  may  thus  confer  but  can  not  exercise,  are 
such  as  relate  to  the  domestic  affairs  and  internal  polity  of  the  territory,  and 
do  not  affect  the  general  welfare  of  the  Repubh'c. 

This  dividing  line  between  Federal  and  local  authority  was  familiar  to  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution.  It  is  clearly  denned  and  distinctly  marked  on 
every  page  of  history  which  records  the  great  events  of  that  immortal  strug 
gle  between  the  American  colonies  and  the  British  government,  which  re 
sulted  in  the  establishment  of  our  national  independence.  In  the  beginning 
of  that  struggle  the  colonies  neither  contemplated  nor  desired  independence. 
In  all  their  addresses  to  the  Crown,  and  to  the  Parliament,  and  to  the  people 
of  Great  Britain,  as  well  as  to  the  people  of  America,  they  averred  that  as 
loyal  British  subjects  they  deplored  the  causes  which  impelled  their  separa 
tion  from  the  parent  country.  They  were  strongly  and  affectionately  attached 
to  the  Constitution,  civil  and  political  institutions  and  jurisprudence  of  Great 
Britain,  which  they  proudly  claimed  as  the  birth-right  of  all  Englismen,  and 
desired  to  transmit  them  unimpaired  as  a  precious  legacy  to  their  posterity. 
For  a  long  series  of  years  they  remonstrated  against  the  violation  of  their  in 
alienable  rights  of  self-government  under  the  British  Constitution,  and  humbly 
petitioned  for  the  redress  of  their  grievances. 

They  acknowledged  and  affirmed  their  allegiance  to  the  Crown,  their  affec 
tion  for  the  people,  and  then-  devotion  to  the  Constitution  of  Great  Britain ; 
and  their  only  complaint  was  that  they  were  not  permitted  to  enjoy  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  self-government,  in  the  management  of  their  internal  affairs 
and  domestic  concerns,  in  accordance  with  the  guaranties  of  that  Constitution 
and  of  the  colonial  charters  granted  by  the  Crown  in  pursuance  of  it.  They 
conceded  the  right  of  the  Imperial  government  to  make  ah1  laws  and  perform 
all  acts  concerning  the  colonies,  which  were  in  their  nature  Imperial  and  not 
colonial — which  affected  the  general  welfare  of  the  Empire,  and  did  not  in 
terfere  with  the  "  internal  polity"  of  the  colonies.  They  recognized  the  right 
of  the  Imperial  government  to  declare  war  and  make  peace ;  to  coin  money 
and  determine  its  value;  to  make  treaties  and  conduct  intercourse  with 
foreign  nations ;  to  regulate  commerce  between  the  several  colonies,  and  be 
tween  each  colony  and  the  parent  country,  and  with  foreign  countries ;  and  in 
general  they  recognized  the  right  of  the  Imperial  government  of  Great  Britain 
to  exercise  ah1  the  powers  and  authority  which,  under  our  Federal  Constitu 
tion,  are  delegated  by  the  people  of  the  several  States  to  the  government  of 
the  United  States. 

Recognizing  and  conceding  to  the  Imperial  government  all  these  powers — 
including  the  right  to  institute  governments  for  the  colonies,  by  granting  charters 


THE  CINCINNATI  PLATFORM.  473 

under  which  the  inhabitants  residing  within  the  limits  of  any  specified  terri 
tory  might  be  organized  into  a,  political  community,  with  a  government  con 
sisting  of  its  appropriate  departments,  executive,  legislative,  and  judicial ; 
conceding  all  these  powers,  the  colonies  emphatically  denied  that  the  im 
perial  government  had  any  rightful  authority  to  impose  taxes  upon  them  with 
out  their  consent,  or  to  interfere  with  their  internal  polity;  claiming  that  it 
was  the  birth-right  of  all  Englishmen — inalienable  when  formed  into  a  political 
community — to  exercise  and  enjoy  all  the  rights,  privileges,  and  immunities 
of  self-government  in  respect  to  all  matters  and  things  which  were  local  and 
not  general — internal  and  not  external — colonial  and  not  imperial — as  fully 
as  if  they  were  inhabitants  of  England,  with  a  fair  representation  in  Par 
liament. 

Thus  it  appears  that  our  fathers  of  the  Revolution  were  contending,  not  for 
independence  in  the  first  instance,  but  for  the  inestimable  right  of  local  self- 
government  under  the  British  Constitution ;  the  right  of  every  distinct  politi 
cal  community — dependent  colonies,  territories,  and  provinces,  as  well  as 
sovereign  states — to  make  their  own  local  laws,  form  their  own  domestic  in 
stitutions,  and  manage  their  own  internal  affairs  in  their  own  way,  subject 
only  to  the  Constitution  of  Great  Britain  as  the  paramount  law  of  the  empire. 

The  government  of  Great  Britain  had  violated  this  inalienable  right  of 
local  self-government  by  a  long  series  of  acts  on  a  great  variety  of  subjects. 
The  first  serious  point  of  controversy  arose  on  the  slavery  question  as  early 
as  1699,  which  continued  a  fruitful  source  of  irritation  until  the  Revolution, 
and  formed  one  of  the  causes  for  the  separation  of  the  colonies  from  the 
British  Crown. 

For  more  than  forty  years  the  Provincial  Legislature  of  Virginia  had  passed 
laws  for  the  protection  and  encouragement  of  African  slavery  within  her 
limits.  This  policy  was  steadily  pursued  until  the  white  inhabitants  of  Vir 
ginia  became  alarmed  for  their  own  safety,  in  view  of  the  numerous  and  for 
midable  tribes  of  Indian  savages  which  surrounded  and  threatened  the  feeble 
white  settlements,  while  ship  loads  of  African  savages  were  being  daily 
lane!  od  in  their  midst.  In  order  to  check  and  restrain  a  policy  which  seemed 
to  threaten  the  very  existence  of  the  colony,  the  Provincial  Legislature 
enacted  a  law  imposing  a  tax  upon  every  slave  who  should  be  brought  into 
Virginia.  The  British  merchants,  who  were  engaged  in  the  African  slave 
trade,  regarding  this  legislation  as  injurious  to  their  interests  and  in  violation 
of  their  rights,  petitioned  the  King  of  England  and  his  Majesty's  ministers  to 
annul  the  obnoxious  law  and  protect  them  in  their  right  to  carry  their  slaves 
into  Virginia  and  all  other  British  colonies  which  were  the  common  property 
of  the  empire — acquired  by  the  common  blood  and  common  treasure — and 
from  which  a  few  adventurers,  who  had  settled  on  the  imperial  domain  by 
his  Majesty's  sufferance,  had  no  right  to  exclude  them  or  discriminate  against 
their  property  by  a  mere  provincial  enactment.  Upon  a  full  consideration 
of  the  subject  the  King  graciously  granted  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners ; 
and  accordingly  issued  peremptory  orders  to  the  royal  governor  of  Virginia, 
and  to  the  governors  of  ah1  the  other  British  colonies  in  America,  forbidding 
them  to  sign  or  approve  any  colonial  or  provincial  enactment  injurious  to 
the  African  slave  trade,  unless  such  enactment  should  contain  a  clause  sus 
pending  its  operation  until  his  Majesty's  pleasure  should  be  made  known  in 
the  premises. 

Judge  Tucker,  in  his  Appendix  to  Blackstone,  refers  to  thirty-one  acts  of 
the  Provincial  Legislature  of  Virginia,  passed  at  various  periods  from  1662 
to  1772,  upon  the  subject  of  African  slavery,  showing  conclusively  that  Vir 
ginia  always  considered  this  as  one  of  the  questions  affecting  her  "  internal 
polity,"  over  which  she,  in  common  with  the  other  colonies,  claimed  u  the 
right  of  exclusive  legislation  in  their  Provincial  Legislatures"  within  their 


474  LIFE   OF    STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS. 

respective  limits.  Some  of  these  acts,  particularly  those  which  were  enacted 
prior  to  the  year  1699,  were  evidently  intended  to  foster  and  encourage,  as 
well  as  to  regulate  and  control  African  slavery,  as  one  of  the  domestic  insti 
tutions  of  the  colony.  The  act  of  1699,  and  most  of  the  enactments  subse 
quent  to  that  date,  were  as  obviously  designed  to  restrain  and  check  the 
growth  of  the  institution,  with  the  view  of  confining  it  within  the  limit  of 
the  actual  necessities  of  the  community,  or  its  ultimate  extinction,  as  might 
be  deemed  most,  conducive  to  the  public  interests,  by  a  system  of  unfriendly 
legislation,  such  as  imposing  a  tax  on  all  slaves  introduced  into  the  colony, 
which  was  increased  and  renewed  from  time  to  time,  as  occasion  required, 
until  the  period  of  the  Revolution.  Many  of  these  acts  never  took  effect,  in 
consequence  of  the  King  withholding  his  assent,  even  after  the  governor  had 
approved  the  enactment,  in  cases  where  it  contained  a  clause  suspending  its 
operation  until  his  Majesty's  pleasure  should  be  made  known  in  the  premises. 

In  1772  the  Provincial  Legislature  of  Virginia,  after  imposing  another  tax 
of  five  per  cent,  on  all  slaves  imported  into  the  colony,  petitioned  the  King 
to  remove  all  those  restraints  which  inhibited  his  Majesty's  governors  as 
senting  to  such  laws  as  might  check  so  very  pernicious  a  commerce  as 
slavery.  Of  this  petition  Judge  Tucker  says : 

"The  following  extract  from  a  petition  to  the  Throne,  presented  from  the 
House  of  Burgesses  of  Virginia,  April  1st,  1772,  will  show  the  sense  of  the 
people  of  Virginia  on  the  subject  of  slavery  at  that  period : 

"  '  The  importation  of  slaves  into  the  colony  from  the  coast  of  Africa  hath 
long  been  considered  as  a  trade  of  great  inhumanity ;  and  under  its  present 
encouragement  we  have  too  much  reason  to  fear  will  endanger  the  very  ex 
istence  of  your  Majesty's  American  dominions.'  " 

Mark  the  ominous  words!  Virginia  tells  the  King  of  England  in  1772, 
four  years  prior  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  that  his  Majesty's  Ameri 
can  dominions  are  in  danger:  not  because  of  the  stamp  duties — not  because 
of  the  tax  on  tea — not  because  of  his  attempts  to  collect  revenue  in  Ameri 
ca  !  These  have  since  been  deemed  sufficient  to  justify  rebellion  and  revo 
lution.  But  none  of  these  are  referred  to  by  Virginia  in  her  address  to  the 
Throne — there  being  another  wrong  which,  in  magnitude  and  enormity, 
so  far  exceeded  these  and  all  other  causes  of  complaint,  that  the  very  exist 
ence  of  his  Majesty's  American  dominions  depended  upon  it !  That  wrong 
consisted  in  forcing  African  slavery  upon  a  dependent  colony  without  her 
consent,  and  in  opposition  to  the  wishes  of  her  own  people ! 

The  people  of  Virginia  at  that  day  did  not  appreciate  the  force  of  the  ar 
gument  used  by  the  British  merchants,  who  were  engaged  in  the  African 
slave-trade,  and  which  was  afterward  indorsed,  at  least  by  implication,  by 
the  King  and  his  ministers  ;  that  the  colonies  were  the  common  property  of 
the  empire — acquired  by  the  common  blood  and  treasure — and  therefore  all 
British  subjects  had  the  right  to  carry  their  slaves  into  the  colonies  and  hold 
them  in  defiance  of  the  local  law  and  in  contempt  of  the  wishes  and  safety 
of  the  colonies. 

The  people  of  Virginia,  not  being  convinced  by  this  process  of  reasoning, 
still  adhered  to  the  doctrine  which  they  held  in  common  with  their  sister 
colonies,  that  it  was  the  birth-right  of  all  freemen — inalienable  when  formed 
into  political  communities — to  exercise  exclusive  legislation  in  respect  to 
all  matters  pertaining  to  their  internal  polity — slavery  not  excepted ;  and 
rather  than  surrender  this  great  right  they  were  prepared  to  withdraw  their 
allegiance  from  the  Crown. 

Again  referring  to  this  petition  to  the  King,  the  same  learned  Judge  adds  : 

"  This  petition  produced  no  effect,  as  appears  from  the  first  clause  of  our 
(Virginia)  Constitution,  where,  among  other  acts  of  misrule,  the  inhuman  uso 
of  the  royal  negative  in  refusing  us  (the  people  of  Virginia)  permission  to 


THE   CINCINNATI   PLATFORM.  475 

exclude  slavery  from  us  by  law,  is  enumerated  among  the  reasons  for  separ 
ating  from  Great  Britniu." 

This  clause  in  the  Constitution  of  Virginia,  referring  to  the  inhuman  use 
of  the  royal  negative,  in  refusing  the  colony  of  Virginia  permission  to  ex 
clude  slavery  from  her  limits  by  law,  as  one  of  the  reasons  for  separating 
from  Great  Britain,  was  adopted  on  the  12th  day  of  June,  1776,  three  weeks 
and  one  day  previous  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence  by  the  Continental 
Congress ;  and  after  remaining  in  force  as  a  part  of  the  Constitution  for  a 
period  of  fifty-four  years,  was  re-adopted,  without  alteration,  by  the  Conven 
tion  which  framed  the  new  Constitution  in  1830,  and  then  ratified  by  the 
people  as  a  part  of  the  new  Constitution ;  and  was  again  re-adopted  by  the 
Convention  which  amended  the  Constitution  in  1850,  and  again  ratified  by 
the  people  as  a  part  of  the  amended  Constitution,  and  at  this  day  remains  a 
portion  of  the  fundamental  law  of  Virginia — proclaiming  to  the  world  and  to 
posterity  that  one  of  the  reasons  for  separating  from  Great  Britain  was  "  the 
inhuman  use  of  the  royal  negative  in  refusing  us  (the  colony  of  Virginia) 
permission  to  exclude  slavery  from  us  by  law  1" 

The  legislation  of  Virginia  on  this  subject  may  be  taken  as  a  fair  sample 
of  the  legislative  enactments  of  each  of  the  thirteen  colonies,  showing  con 
clusively  that  slavery  was  regarded  by  them  all  as  a  domestic  question  to 
be  regarded  and  determined  by  each  colony  to  suit  itself,  without  the  inter 
vention  of  the  British  Parliament  or  "  the  inhuman  use  of  the  royal  nega 
tive."  Each  colony  passed  a  series  of  enactments,  beginning  at  an  early 
period  of  its  history  and  running  down  to  the  commencement  pf  the  Revolu 
tion,  either  protecting,  regulating,  or  restraining  African  slavery  within  its 
respective  limits  and  in  accordance  with  their  wishes  and  supposed  interests. 
North  and  South  Carolina,  following  the  example  of  Virginia,  at  first  en 
couraged  the  introduction  of  slaves,  until  the  number  increased  beyond  their 
wants  and  necessities,  when  they  attempted  to  check  and  restrain  the  fur 
ther  growth  of  the  institution,  by  imposing  a  high  rate  of  taxation  upon  all 
slaves  which  should  be  brought  into  those  colonies;  and  finally,  in  1764, 
South  Carolina  passed  a  law  imposing  a  penalty  of  one  hundred  pounds  (or 
five  hundred  dollars)  for  every  negro  slave  subsequently  introduced  into  that 
colony. 

The  colony  of  Georgia  was  originally  founded  on  strict  anti-slavery  prin 
ciples,  and  rigidly  maintained  this  policy  for  a  series  of  years,  until  the 
inhabitants  became  convinced  by  experience  that,  with  their  climate  and 
productions,  slave  labor,  if  not  essential  to  their  existence,  would  prove  bene 
ficial  and  useful  to  their  material  interests.  Maryland  and  Delaware  protected 
and  regulated  African  slavery  as  one  of  their  domestic  institutions.  Penn 
sylvania,  under  the  advice  of  William  Penn,  substituted  fourteen  years'  ser 
vice  and  perpetual  adscript  to  the  soil  for  hereditary  slavery,  and  attempted 
to  legislate,  not  for  the  total  abolition  of  slavery,  but  for  the  sanctity  of  mar 
riage  among  slaves,  and  for  their  personal  security.  New  Jersey,  New  York, 
and  Connecticut  recognized  African  slavery  as  a  domestic  institution  lawfully 
existing  within  their  respective  limits,  and  passed  the  requisite  laws  for  its 
control  and  regulation. 

Rhode  Island  provided  by  law  that  no  slave  should  serve  more  than  ten 
years,  at  the  end  of  which  time  he  was  to  be  set  free ;  and  if  the  master 
should  refuse  to  let  him  go  free,  or  sold  him  elsewhere  for  a  longer  period  of 
service,  he  was  subject  to  a  penalty  of  forty  pounds,  which  was  supposed  at 
that  period  to  be  nearly  double  the  value  of  the  slave. 

Massachusetts  imposed  heavy  taxes  upon  all  slaves  brought  into  the  col 
ony,  and  provided  in  some  instances  for  sending  the  slaves  back  to  their  na 
tive  laud ;  and  finally  prohibited  the  introduction  of  any  more  slaves  into  the 
colony  under  any  circumstances. 


476  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

"When  New  Hampshire  passed  laws  which  were  designed  to  prevent  the 
introduction  of  any  more  slaves,  the  British  cabinet  issued  the  following  or 
der  to  Governor  Went  worth :  "  You  are  not  to  give  your  assent  to,  or  pass 
any  law  imposing  duties  upon  negroes  imported  into  New  Hampshire." 

While  the  legislation  of  the  several  colonies  exhibits  dissimilarity  of  views, 
founded  on  a  diversity  of  interests,  on  the  merits  and  policy  of  slavery,  it 
shows  conclusively  that  they  all  regarded  it  as  a  domestic  question  affecting 
their  internal  polity  in  respect  to  which  they  were  entitled  to  a  full  and  ex 
clusive  power  of  legislation  in  the  several  provincial  Legislatures.  For  a 
few  years  immediately  preceding  the  American  Eevolution  the  African  slave- 
trade  was  encouraged  and  stimulated  by  the  British  government  and  carried 
on  with  more  vigor  by  the  English  merchants  than  at  at  any  other  period  in 
the  history  of  the  colonies ;  and  this  fact,  taken  in  connection  with  the  ex 
traordinary  claim  asserted  in  the  memorable  preamble  to  the  act  repealing 
the  stamp  duties,  that  "  Parliament  possessed  the  right  to  bind  the  colonies 
in  all  cases  whatever,"  not  only  in  respect  to  all  matters  affecting  the  gene 
ral  welfare  of  the  empire,  but  also  in  regard  to  the  domestic  relations  and  in 
ternal  policy  of  the  colony — produced  a  powerful  impression  upon  the  minds 
of  the  colonists,  and  imparted  peculiar  prominence  to  the  principle  involved 
in  the  controversy. 

Hence  the  enactments  by  the  several  colonial  Legislatures  calculated  and 
designed  to  restrain  and  prevent  the  increase  of  slaves ;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  orders  issued  by  the  Crown  instructing  the  colonial  governors  not 
to  sign  or  permit  any  legislative  enactment  prejudicial  or  injurious  to  the  African 
slave  trade,  unless  such  enactment  should  contain  a  clause  suspending  its 
operation  until  the  royal  pleasure  should  be  made  known  in  the  premises ;  or, 
in  other  words,  until  the  king  should  have  an  opportunity  of  annulling  the 
acts  of  the  colonial  Legislatures  by  the  "  inhuman  use  of  the  royal  negative." 

Thus  the  policy  of  the  colonies  on  the  slavery  question  had  assumed  a  direct 
antagonism  to  that  of  the  British  government ;  and  this  antagonism  not  only 
added  to  the  importance  of  the  principle  of  local  self-government  in  the  col 
onies,  but  produced  a  general  concurrence  of  opinion  and  action  in  respect  to 
the  question  of  slavery  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Continental  Congress,  which 
assembled  at  Philadelphia  for  the  first  time  on  the  5th  of  September,  1774. 

On  the  14th  of  October  the  Congress  adopted  a  bill  of  rights  for  the  col 
onies,  in  the  form  of  a  series  of  resolutions,  in  which,  after  conceding  to  the 
British  government  the  power  to  regulate  commerce  and  do  such  other  things 
as  affected  the  general  welfare  of  the  empire  without  interfering  with  the  in 
ternal  polity  of  the  colonies,  they  declared  "  That  they  are  entitled  to  a  free 
and  exclusive  power  in  their  several  provincial  Legislatures,  where  their  right 
of  representation  can  alone  be  preserved,  in  all  cases  of  taxation  and  internal 
polity."  Having  thus  defined  the  principle  for  which  they  were  contending, 
the  Congress  proceeded  to  adopt  the  following  "Peaceful  Measures,"  which 
they  still  hoped  would  be  sufficient  to  induce  compliance  with  their  just  and 
reasonable  demands.  These  "  Peaceful  Measures"  consisted  of  addresses  to 
the  king,  to  the  Parliament,  and  to  the  people  of  Great  Britain,  together  with 
an  Association  of  Non-Intercourse  to  be  observed  and  maintained  so  long  as 
their  grievances  should  remain  unredressed. 

The  second  article  of  this  Association,  which  was  adopted  without  opposi 
tion  and  signed  by  the  delegates  from  all  the  colonies,  was  in  these  words : 

"  That  we  will  neither  import  nor  purchase  any  slave  imported  after  the 
first  day  of  December  next ;  after  which  time  we  will  wholly  discontinue  the 
slave  trade,  and  will  neither  be  concerned  in  it  ourselves,  nor  will  we  hire  our 
vessels,  nor  sell  our  commodities  or  manufactures  to  those  who  are  engaged 
in  it." 

This  bill  of  rights,  together  with  these  articles  of  association,  were  subse- 


THE   CINCINNATI   PLATFOEM.  477 

quently  submitted  to  and  adopted  by  each  of  the  thirteen  colonies  in  their 
respective  provincial  Legislatures. 

Thus  was  distinctly  formed  between  the  colonies  and  the  parent  country 
that  issue  upon  which  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  founded  and  the 
battles  of  the  Revolution  were  fought.  It  involved  the  specific  claim  on  the 
part  of  the  colonies—denied  by  the  King  and  Parliament — to  the  exclusive 
right  of  legislation  touching  all  local  and  internal  concerns,  slavery  included. 
This  being  the  principle  involved  in  the  contest,  a  majority  of  the  colonies 
refused  to  permit  their  delegates  to  sign  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
except  upon  the  distinct  condition  and  express  reservation  to  each  colony  of 
the  exclusive  right  to  manage  and  control  its  local  concerns  and  police  regu 
lations  without  the  intervention  of  any  general  Congress  which  might  bo 
established  for  the  United  Colonies. 

Let  us  cite  one  of  these  reservations  as  a  specimen  of  all,  showing  conclu 
sively  that  they  were  fighting  for  the  inalienable  right  of  local  self-government, 
with  the  clear  understanding  that  when  they  had  succeeded  in  throwing  off 
the  despotism  of  the  British  Parliament,  no  congressional  despotism  was  to 
be  substituted  for  it : 

"  We,  the  delegates  of  Maryland,  in  convention  assembled,  do  declare  that 
the  King  of  Great  Britain  has  violated  his  compact  with  this  people,  and  that 
they  owe  no  allegiance  to  him.  We  have,  therefore,  thought  it  just  and  ne 
cessary  to  empower  our  deputies  in  Congress  to  join  with  a  majority  of  the 
United  Colonies  in  declaring  them  free  and  independent  States,  in  framing 
such  further  confederation  between  them,  in  making  foreign  alliances,  and  in 
adopting  such  other  measures  as  shall  be  judged  necessary  for  the  preservation 
of  their  liberties  : 

"  Provided,  the  sole  and  exclusive  right  of  regulating  the  internal  polity  and 
government  of  this  colony  be  reserved  to  the  people  thereof. 

"  We  have  also  thought  proper  to  call  a  new  Convention  for  the  purpose  of 
establishing  a  government  in  this  colony. 

"No  ambitious  views,  no  desire  of  independence,  induced  the  people  of 
Maryland  to  form  an  union  with  the  other  colonies.  To  procure  an  exemp 
tion  from  parliamentary  taxation,  and  to  continue  to  the  Legislatures  of  these 
colonies  the  sole  and  exclusive  right  of  regulating  their  internal  polity,  was 
our  original  and  only  motive.  To  maintain  inviolate  our  liberties,  and  to 
transmit  them  unimpaired  to  posterity,  was  our  duty  and  our  first  wish ;  our 
next,  to  continue  connected  with  and  dependent  on  Great  Britain.  For  the 
truth  of  these  assertions  we  appeal  to  that  Almighty  Being  who  is  emphati 
cally  styled  the  Searcher  of  hearts,  and  from  whose  omniscience  none  is  con 
cealed.  Relying  on  his  Divine  protection  and  assistance,  and  trusting  to  the 
justice  of  our  cause,  we  exhort  and  conjure  every  virtuous  citizen  to  join  cor 
dially  in  defense  of  our  common  rights,  and  in  maintenance  of  the  freedom  of 
this  and  her  sister  colonies." 

The  first  plan  of  Federal  government  adopted  for  the  United  States  was 
formed  during  the  Revolution,  and  is  usually  known  as  "  The  Articles  of  Con 
federation."  By  these  articles  it  was  provided  that  "  Each  state  retains  its 
sovereignty,  freedom  and  independence,  and  every  power,  jurisdiction  and 
right  which  is  not  by  this  Confederation  expressly  delegated  to  the  United 
States  in  Congress  assembled." 

At  the  time  the  Articles  of  Confederation  were  adopted — July  9,  1778 — the 
United  States  held  no  lands  or  territory  in  common.  The  entire  country — 
including  all  the  waste  and  unappropriated  lands — embraced  within  or  per 
taining  to  the  confederacy,  belonged  to  and  was  the  property  of  the  several 
States  within  whose  limits  the  same  was  situated. 

On  the  6th  day  of  September,  1780.  Congress  "  recommended  to  the  several 
states  of  the  Union  having  claims  to  waste  and  unappropriated  lands  in  the 


478  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

western  country,  a  liberal  cession  to  the  United  States  of  a  portion  of  their 
respective  claims  for  the  common  benefit  of  the  Union." 

On  the  20th  day  of  October,  1783,  the  Legislature  of  Virginia  passed  an 
act  authorizing  the  delegates  in  Congress  from  that  state  to  convey  to  the 
United  States  "  the  territory  or  tract  of  country  within  the  limits  of  the  Vir 
ginia  charter,  lying  and  bearing  to  the  northwest  of  the  river  Ohio" — which 
grant  was  to  be  made  upon  the  "  condition  that  the  territory  so  ceded  shall 
be  laid  out  and  formed  into  States;"  and  that  "the  states  so  formed  shall  be 
distinct  Republican  state?,  and  admitted  members  of  the  Federal  Union, 
having  the  same  rights  of  sovereignty,  freedom,  and  independence  as  the  other 
states." 

On  the  1st  day  of  March,  1784,  Thomas  Jefferson  and  his  colleagues  in  Con 
gress  executed  the  deed  of  cession  in  pursuance  of  the  act  of  the  Virginia  Leg 
islature,  which  was  accepted  and  ordered  to  "  be  recorded  and  enrolled  among 
the  acts  of  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled."  This  was  the  first  ter 
ritory  ever  acquired,  held,  or  owned  by  the  United  States.  On  the  same  day 
of  the  deed  of  cession  Mr.  Jefferson,  as  chairman  of  a  committee  which  had 
been  appointed,  consisting  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  of  Virginia,  Mr.  Chase,  of  Mary 
land,  and  Mr.  Ho  well,  of  Rhode  Island,  submitted  to  Congress  "  a  plan  for  the 
temporary  government  of  the  territory  ceded  or  to  be  ceded  by  the  individual 
states  of  the  United  States." 

It  is  important  that  this  Jeffersonian  plan  of  government  for  the  territories 
should  be  carefully  considered  for  many  obvious  reasons.  It  was  the  first 
plan  of  government  for  the  territories  ever  adopted  in  the  United  States.  It 
was  drawn  by  the  author  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  revised  and 
adopted  by  those  who  shaped  the  issues  which  produced  the  Revolution,  and 
formed  the  foundations  upon  which  our  whole  American  system  of  govern 
ment  rests.  It  was  not  intended  to  be  either  local  or  temporary  in  its  char 
acter,  but  was  designed  to  apply  to  all  "territory  ceded  or  to  be  ceded,"  and 
to  be  universal  in  its  application  and  eternal  in  its  duration,  wherever  and 
whenever  we  might  have  territory  requiring  a  government.  It  ignored  the 
right  of  Congress  to  legislate  for  the  people  of  the  territories  without  their 
consent,  and  recognized  the  inalienable  right  of  the  people  of  the  territories, 
when  organized  into  political  communities,  to  govern  themselves  in  respect  to 
their  local  concerns  and  internal  policy.  It  was  adopted  by  the  Congress  of 
the  Confederation  on  the  23d  day  of  April,  1784,  and  stood  upon  the  statute 
book  as  a  general  and  permanent  plan  for  the  government  of  all  territory 
which  we  then  owned  or  should  subsequently  acquire,  with  a  provision  declar 
ing  it  to  be  a  "  Charier  of  Compact,"  and  that  its  provisions  should  "stand 
as  fundamental  conditions  between  the  thirteen  original  states  and  those  newly 
described,  unalterable  but  by  the  joint  consent  of  the  United  States  in  Con 
gress  assembled,  and  of  the  particular  state  within  which  such  alteration  is 
proposed  to  be  made."  Thus  this  Jeffersonian  plan  for  the  government  of  the 
territories — this  "  Charter  of  Compact" — "  these  fundamental  conditions," 
which  were  declared  to  be  "  unalterable"  without  the  consent  of  the  people 
of  "  the  particular  states  (territories)  within  which  such  alteration  is  proposed 
to  be  made,"  stood  on  the  statute  book  when  the  Convention  assembled  at 
Philadelphia  in  1787  and  proceeded  to  form  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States. 

Now  let  us  examine  the  mam  provisions  of  the  Jeffersonian  plan  : 

First. — "  That  the  territory  ceded  or  to  be  ceded  by  the  individual  states  to 
the  United  States,  whenever  the  same  shall  have  been  purchased  of  the  Indian 
inhabitants  and  offered  for  sale  by  the  United  States,  shall  be  formed  into 
additional  states"  etc.  etc. 

The  plan  proceeds  to  designate  the  boundaries  and  territorial  extent  of  the 
proposed  "  additional  states,"  and  then  provides : 


THE    CINCINNATI    PLATFORM.  479 

Second. — "  That  the  settlers  within  the  territory  so  to  be  purchased  and 
offered  for  sale  shall,  either  on  their  own  petition  or  on  the  order  of  Congress, 
receive  authority  from  them,  with  appointments  of  time  and  place,  for  their 
free  males  of  full  age  to  meet  together  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a  tem 
porary  government  to  adopt  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  any  one  of  these 
states  (the  original  states),  so  that  such  laws  nevertheless  shall  bo  subject  to 
alteration  by  their  ordinary  Legislature ;  and  to  erect,  subject  to  like  altera 
tion,  counties  or  townships  for  the  election  of  members  for  their  Legislature." 

Having  thus  provided  a  mode  by  which  the  first  inhabitants  or  settlers  of 
the  territory  may  assemble  together  and  choose  for  themselves  the  Constitu 
tion  and  laws  of  some  one  of  the  original  thirteen  states,  and  declare  the  same 
in  force  for  the  government  of  their  territory  temporarily,  with  the  right  on 
the  part  of  the  people  to  change  the  same,  through  their  local  Legislature, 
as  they  may  see  proper,  the  plan  then  proceeds  to  point  out  the  mode  in  which 
they  may  establish  for  themselves  "  a  permanent  Constitution  and  govern 
ment,"  whenever  they  shall  have  twenty  thousand  inhabitants,  as  follows  : 

Third. — "  That  such  temporary  government  only  shall  continue  in  force  in 
any  State  until  it  shall  have  acquired  twenty  thousand  free  inhabitants,  when, 
giving  due  proof  thereof  to  Congress,  they  shall  receive  from  them  authority, 
with  appointments  of  time  and  place,  to  call  a  Convention  of  Representatives 
to  establish  a  permanent  Constitution  and  government  for  themselves." 

Having  thus  provided  for  the  first  settlers  ' '  a  temporary  government"  in 
these  "  additional  states,"  and  for  "a  permanent  Constitution  and  govern 
ment."  when  they  shall  have  acquired  twenty  thousand  inhabitants,  the  plan 
contemplates  that  they  shall  continue  to  govern  themselves  as  states,  having, 
as  provided  in  the  Virginia  deed  of  cession,  "  the  same  rights  of  sovereignty, 
freedom,  and  independence,"  in  respect  to  their  domestic  affairs  and  internal 
polity,  "  as  the  other  States,"  until  they  shall  have  a  population  equal  to  the 
least  numerous  of  the  original  thirteen  States ;  and  in  the  mean  time  shall 
keep  a  sitting  member  in  Congress,  with  a  right  of  debating  but  not  of  voting, 
when  they  shall  be  admitted  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the 
other  states,  as  follows : 

Fourth. — "  That  whenever  any  of  the  said  states  shall  have  of  free  inhabi 
tants  as  many  as  shah1  then  be  in  any  one  of  the  least  numerous  of  the  thir 
teen  original  states,  such  state  shall  be  admitted  by  its  delegates  into  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  said  original 
states."  .... 

And— 

"  Until  such  admission  by  their  delegates  into  Congress  any  of  the  said 
states,  after  the  establishment  of  their  temporary  government,  shall  have  au 
thority  to  keep  a  sitting  member  in  Congress,  with  the  right  of  debating,  but 
not  of  voting." 

Attached  to  the  provision  which  appears  in  this  paper  under  the  "  third" 
head  is  a  proviso,  containing  five  propositions,  which  when  agreed  to  and  ac 
cepted  by  the  people  of  said  additional  states,  were  to  "  be  formed  into  a 
charter  of  compact,"  and  to  remain  forever  "  unalterable,"  except  by  the  con 
sent  of  such  states  as  well  as  of  the  United  States — to  wit : 

"  Provided  that  both  the  temporary  and  permanent  governments  be  estab 
lished  on  these  principles  as  their  basis : 

1st. — "  That  they  shall  forever  remain  a  part  of  the  United  States  of 
America." 

2d. — "  That  in  their  persons,  property,  and  territory  they  shall  be  subject  to 
the  government  of  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  and  to  the  Arti 
cles  of  Confederation  in  all  those  cases  in  which  the  original  states  shall  be  so 
subject." 

3d. — "  That  they  shall  be  subject  to  pay  a  part  of  the  federal  debts  con- 


480  LIFE   OF    STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

tracted,  or  to  be  contracted — to  be  apportioned  on  them  by  Congress  accord 
ing  to  the  same  common  rule  and  measure  by  which  apportionments  thereof 
shall  be  made  on  the  other  states." 

4th. — "That  their  respective  governments  shall  be  in  republican  form,  and 
shall  admit  no  person  to  be  a  citizen  who  holds  any  hereditary  title." 

The  fifth  article,  which  relates  to  the  prohibition  of  slavery  after  the  year 
1800,  having  been  rejected  by  Congress,  never  became  a  part  of  the  Jeffer- 
sonian  plan  of  government  for  the  territories,  as  adopted  April  23,  1784. 

The  concluding  paragraph  of  this  plan  of  government,  which  emphatically 
ignores  the  right  of  Congress  to  bind  the  people  of  the  territories  without 
their  consent,  and  recognizes  the  people  therein  as  the  true  source  of  all  legi 
timate  power  in  respect  to  their  internal  polity,  is  in  these  words : 

"  That  all  the  preceding  articles  shall  be  formed  into  a  charter  of  compact, 
shall  be  duly  executed  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in  Congress  as 
sembled,  under  his  hand  and  the  seal  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  promul 
gated,  and  shall  stand  as  fundamental  conditions  between  the  thirteen  original 
states  and  those  newly  described,  unalterable  but  by  the  joint  consent  of  the 
United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  and  of  the  particular  state  within  which 
such  alteration  is  proposed  to  be  made." 

This  Jeffersonian  plan  of  government  embodies  and  carries  out  the  ideas  and 
principles  of  the  fathers  of  the  Kevolution — that  the  people  of  every  separate 
political  community  (dependent  colonies,  provinces,  and  territories,  as  well 
as  sovereign  states)  have  an  inalienable  right  to  govern  themselves  in  respect 
to  their  internal  polity,  and  repudiates  the  dogma  of  the  British  ministry  and 
the  Tories  of  that  day,  that  all  colonies,  provinces,  and  territories  were  the 
property  of  the  empire,  acquired  with  the  common  blood  and  common  treas 
ure  ;  and  that  the  inhabitants  thereof  have  no  rights,  privileges,  or  immunities 
except  such  as  the  Imperial  government  should  graciously  condescend  to  be 
stow  upon  them.  This  plan  recognizes  by  law  and  irre vocable  "  compact" 
the  existence  of  two  distinct  classes  of  states  under  our  American  system  of 
government — the  one  being  members  of  the  Union,  and  consisting  of  the 
original  thirteen  and  such  other  states,  having  the  requisite  population,  as 
Congress  should  admit  into  the  Federal  Union,  with  an  equal  vote  in  the  man 
agement  of  Federal  affairs,  as  well  as  the  exclusive  power  in  regard  to  then* 
internal  polity  respectively — the  others,  not  having  the  requisite  population 
for  admission  into  the  Union,  could  have  no  vote  or  agency  in  the  control  of 
the  Federal  relations,  but  possessed  the  same  exclusive  power  over  their  do 
mestic  affairs  and  internal  policy  respectively  as  the  original  states,  with  the 
right,  while  they  have  less  than  twenty  thousand  inhabitants,  to  choose  for 
their  government  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  any  one  of  the  original  states ; 
and  when  they  should  have  more  than  twenty  thousand,  but  less  than  the 
number  required  to  entitle  them  to  admission  into  the  Union,  they  were  au 
thorized  to  form  for  themselves,  "a  permanent  Constitution  and  government ;" 
and  in  either  case  they  were  entitled  to  keep  a  delegate  in  Congress  with  the 
right  of  debating,  but  not  of  voting.  This  "  Charter  of  Compact,"  with  its 
"  fundamental  conditions,"  which  were  declared  to  be  "  unalterable"  without 
"  the  joint  consent"  of  the  people  interested  in  them,  as  well  as  of  the  United 
States,  thus  stood  on  the  statute  book  unrepealed  and  irrepealable — furnish 
ing  a  complete  system  of  government  for  all  "the  territories  ceded  or  to  be 
ceded"  to  the  United  States,  without  any  other  legislation  upon  the  subject, 
when,  on  the  14th  day  of  May,  1787,  the  Federal  Convention  assembled  in 
Philadelphia  and  proceeded  to  form  the  Constitution  under  which  we  now 
live.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  dividing  line  between  Federal  and  local 
authority,  in  respect  to  the  rights  of  those  political  communities  which,  for  the 
sake  of  convenience  and  in  contradistinction  to  the  states  represented  in  Con 
gress,  we  now  call  territories,  but  which  were  then  known  as  "states"  or  "new 


THE   CINCINNATI   PLATFORM.  481 

states"  was  so  distinctly  marked  at  that  day  that  no  intelligent  man  could  fail 
to  perceive  it. 

It  is  true  that  the  government  of  the  Confederation  had  proved  totally  in 
adequate  to  the  fulfillment  of  the  ends  for  which  it  was  devised ;  not  because 
of  the  relations  between  the  territories,  or  new  states  and  the  United  States, 
but  in  consequence  of  having  no  power  to  enforce  its  decrees  on  the  Federal 
questions  which  were  clearly  within  the  scope  of  its  expressly  delegated  powers. 
The  radical  defects  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation  were  found  to  consist  in 
the  fact  that  it  was  a  mere  league  between  sovereign  states,  and  not  a  Federal 
government  with  its  appropriate  departments — executive,  legislative,  and 
judicial-*-each  clothed  with  authority  to  perform  and  carry  into  effect  its 
own  peculiar  functions.  The  Confederation  having  no  power  to  enforce 
compliance  with  its  resolves,  "  the  consequence  was,  that  though  in  theory 
the  resolutions  of  Congress  were  equivalent  to  laws,  yet  in  practice  they 
were  found  to  be>  mere  recommendations,  which  the  states,  like  other  sover 
eignties,  observed  or  disregarded  according  to  their  own  good- will  and  gra 
cious  pleasure."  Congress  could  not  impose  duties,  collect  taxes,  raise 
armies,  or  do  any  other  act  essential  to  the  existence  of  government,  without 
the  voluntary  consent  and  cooperation  of  each  of  the  states.  Congress  could 
resolve,  but  could  not  carry  its  resolutions  into  effect — could  recommend  to 
the  states  to  provide  a  revenue  for  the  necessities  of  the  Federal  government, 
but  could  not  use  the  means  necessary  to  the  collection  of  the  revenue  when 
the  states  failed  to  comply — could  recommend  to  the  states  to  provide  an 
army  for  the  general  defense,  and  apportion  among  the  states  their  respec 
tive  quotas,  but  could  not  enlist  the  men  and  order  them  into  the  Federal 
service.  For  these  reasons,  a  Federal  government,  with  its  appropriate  de 
partments,  acting  directly  upon  the  individual  citizens,  with  authority  to 
enforce  its  decrees  to  the  extent  of  its  delegated  powers,  and  not  dependent 
upon  the  voluntary  action  of  the  several  states  in  their  corporate  capacity, 
became  indispensable  as  a  substitute  for  the  government  of  the  Confederation. 

In  the  formation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  the  federal  Con 
vention  took  the  British  Constitution,  as  interpreted  and  expounded  by  the 
colonies  during  their  controversy  with  Great  Britain,  for  their  model — mak 
ing  such  modifications  in  its  structure  and  principles  as  the  change  in  our 
condition  had  rendered  necessary.  They  intrusted  the  executive  functions 
to  a  President  in  the  place  of  a  King ;  the  legislative  functions  to  a  Congress 
composed  of  a  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,  in  lieu  of  the  Parlia 
ment  consisting  of  the  House  of  Lords  and  Commons;  and  the  judicial  func 
tions  to  a  Supreme  Court  and  such  inferior  courts  as  Congress  should  from 
time  to  time  ordain  and  establish. 

Having  thus  divided  the  powers  of  government  into  the  three  appropriate 
departments,  with  which  they  had  always  been  familiar,  they  proceeded  to 
confer  upon  the  federal  government  substantially  the  same  powers  which 
they  as  colonies  had  been  willing  to  concede  to  the  British  government,  and 
to  reserve  to  the  states  and  to  the  people  the  same  rights  and  privileges 
which  they  as  colonies  had  denied  to  the  British  government  during  the  en 
tire  struggle  which  terminated  in  our  independence,  and  which  they  had 
claimed  for  themselves  and  their  posterity  as  the  birth-right  of  all  freemen, 
inalienable  when  organized  into  political  communities,  and  to  be  enjoyed 
and  exercised  by  colonies,  territories,  and  provinces  as  fully  and  completely 
as  by  sovereign  states.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  there  is  no  organic  feature 
or  fundamental  principle  embodied  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
which  had  not  been  familiar  to  the  people  of  the  colonies  from  the  period  of 
their  earliest  settlement,  and  which  had  not  been  repeatedly  asserted  by  them 
when  denied  by  Great  Britain  during  the  whole  period  of  their  coionial  his- 

x 


482  LIFE   OP   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

Let  us  pause  at  this  point  for  a  moment,  and  inquire  whether  it  be  just  to 
those  illustrious  patriots  and  sages  who  formed  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  to  assume  that  they  intended  to  confer  upon  Congress  that 
unlimited  and  arbitrary  power  over  the  people  of  the  American  territories, 
which  they  had  resisted  with  their  blood  when  claimed  by  the  British  Par- 
ham  ent  over  British  colonies  in  America  ?  Did  they  confer  upon  Congress 
the  right  to  bind  the  people  of  the  American  territories  in  all  cases  whatso 
ever,  after  having  fought  the  battles  of  the  Revolution  against  a  "  Preamble" 
declaring  the  right  of  Parliament  "  to  bind  the  colonies  in  all  cases  whatso 
ever  ?" 

If,  as  they  contended  before  the  Eevolution,  it  was  the  birth-right  of  all 
Englishmen,  inalienable  when  formed  into  political  communities,  to  exercise 
exclusive  power  of  legislation  in  their  local  Legislatures  in  respect  to  all 
things  affecting  their  internal  polity — slavery  not  excepted — did  not  the 
same  right,  after  the  Eevolution,  and  by  virtue  of  it,  become  the  birth-right 
of  all  Americans,  in  like  manner  inalienable  when  organized  into  political 
communities — no  matter  by  what  name,  whether  colonies,  territories,  prov 
inces,  or  new  states  ? 

Names  often  deceive  persons  in  respect  to  the  nature  and  substance  of 
things.  A  single  instance  of  this  kind  is  to  be  found  in  that  clause  of  the 
Constitution  which  says : 

"  Congress  shall  have  power  to  dispose  of,  and  make  all  needful  rules  and 
regulations  respecting  the  territory  or  other  property  belonging  to  the  United 
States." 

This  being  the  only  clause  of  the  Constitution  in  which  the  word  "  terri 
tory"  appears,  that  fact  alone  has  doubtless  led  many  persons  to  suppose 
that  the  right  of  Congress  to  establish  temporary  governments  for  the  terri 
tories,  in  the  sense  in  which  the  word  is  now  used,  must  be  derived  from  it, 
overlooking  the  important  and  controlling  facts  that  at  the  tune  the  Consti 
tution  was  formed  the  word  "  territory"  had  never  been  used  or  understood 
to  designate  a  political  community  or  government  of  any  kind  in  any  law, 
compact,  deed  of  cession,  or  public  document ;  but  had  invariably  been  used 
either  in  its  geographical  sense  to  describe  the  superficial  area  of  a  State  or 
district  of  country,  as  in  the  Virginia  deed  of  cession  of  the  "territory  or 
tract  of  country"  north w^t  of  the  river  Ohio ;  or  as  meaning  land  in  its 
character  as  property,  in  which  latter  sense  it  appears  in  the  clause  of  the 
Constitution  referred  to,  when  providing  for  the  disposition  of  the  "  territory 
or  other  property  belonging  to  the  United  States."  These  facts,  taking  in 
connection  with  the  kindred  one  that  during  the  whole  period  of  the  con 
federation  and  the  formation  of  the  Constitution  the  temporary  governments 
which  we  now  call  "  territories,"  were  invariably  referred  to  in  the  deeds  of 
cession,  laws,  compacts,  plans  of  government,  resolutions  of  Congress,  public 
records,  and  authentic  documents  as  "states,"  or  "new  states,"  conclusively 
show  that  the  words  "  territory  and  other  property"  in  the  Constitution  were 
used  to  designate  the  unappropriated  lands  and  other  property  which  the 
United  States  owned,  and  not  the  people  who  might  become  residents  on 
those  lands,  and  be  organized  into  political  communities  after  the  United 
States  had  parted  with  their  title. 

It  is  from  this  clause  of  the  Constitution  alone  that  Congress  derives  the 
power  to  provide  for  the  surveys  and  sale  of  the  public  lands  and  all  other 
property  belonging  to  the  United  States,  not  only  in  the  territories,  but  also 
in  the  several  states  of  the  Union.  But  for  this  provision  Congress  would 
have  no  power  to  authorize  the  sale  of  the  public  lands,  military  sites,  old 
ships,  cannon,  muskets,  or  other  property,  real  or  personal,  which  belong  to 
the  United  States  and  are  no  longer  needed  for  any  public  purpose.  It 
refers  exclusively  to  property  in  contradistinction  to  persons  and  communi- 


THE    CINCINNATI    PLATFORM.  483 

ties.  It  confers  the  same  power  "  to  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations"  in 
the  states  as  in  the  territories,  and  extends  wherever  there  may  be  any  land 
or  other  property  belonging  to  the  United  States  to  be  regulated  or  disposed 
of;  but  does  not  authorize  Congress  to  control  or  interfere  with  the  domestic 
institutions  and  internal  polity  of  the  people  (either  in  the  states  or  the  ter 
ritories)  who  may  reside  upon  lands  which  the  United  States  onoe  owned. 
Such  a  power,  had  it  been  vested  in  Congress,  would  annihilate  the  sover 
eignty  and  freedom  of  the  states  as  well  as  the  great  principle  of  self-gov 
ernment  in  the  territories,  wherever  the  United  States  happen  to  own  a 
portion  of  the  public  land  within  their  respective  limits,  as,  at  present,  in  the 
States  of  Alabama,  Florida,  Mississippi,  Louisiana,  Arkansas,  Missouri,  Illi 
nois,  Indiana,  Ohio,  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Iowa,  Minnesota,  California,  and 
Oregon,  and  in  the  Territories  of  Washington,  Nebraska,  Kansas,  Utah,  and 
New  Mexico.  The  idea  is  repugnant  to  the  spirit  and  genius  of  our  com 
plex  system  of  government ;  because  it  effectually  blots  out  the  dividing 
line  between  federal  and  local  authority,  which  forms  an  essential  barrier  for 
the  defense  of  the  independence  of  the  states  and  the  liberties  of  the  people 
against  federal  invasion.  With  one  anomalous  exception,  all  the  powers 
conferred  on  Congress  are  federal,  and  not  municipal,  in  their  character — af 
fecting  the  general  welfare  of  the  whole  country  without  interfering  with 
the  internal  polity  of  the  people — and  can  be  carried  into  effect  by  laws 
which  apply  alike  to  states  and  territories.  The  exception,  being  in  dero 
gation  of  one  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  political  system  (because 
it  authorizes  the  federal  government  to  control  the  municipal  affairs  and  in 
ternal  polity  of  the  people  in  certain  specified,  limited  localities),  was  not 
left  to  vague  inference  or  loose  construction,  nor  expressed  in  dubious  or 
equivocal  language  ;  but  is  found  plainly  written  in  that  section  of  the  Con 
stitution  which  says : 

"  Congress  shall  have  power  to  exercise  exclusive  legislation  in  all  cases 
whatsoever,  over  such  district  (not  exceeding  ten  miles  square)  as  may,  by 
cession  of  particular  states,  and  the  acceptance  of  Congress,  become  the 
seat  of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  and  to  exercise  like  authority 
over  all  places  purchased  by  the  consent  of  the  Legislature  of  the  state  in 
which  the  same  shall  be  for  the  erection  of  forts,  magazines,  arsenals,  dock 
yards,  and  other  needful  buildings." 

No  such  power  "  to  exercise  exclusive  legislation  in  all  cases  whatsoever," 
nor  indeed  any  legislation  in  any  case  whatsoever,  is  conferred  on  Congress 
in  respect  to  the  municipal  affairs  and  internal  polity,  either  of  the  states  or 
of  the  territories.  On  the  contrary,  after  the  Constitution  had  been  finally 
adopted,  with  its  federal  power  delegated,  enumerated,  and  defined,  in  order 
to  guard  in  all  future  time  against  any  possible  infringement  of  the  reserved 
rights  of  the  states,  or  of  the  people,  an  amendment  was  incorporated  into 
the  Constitution  which  marks  the  dividing  line  between  federal  and  local 
authority  so  directly  and  indelibly  that  no  lapse  of  time,  no  partisan  preju 
dice,  no  sectional  aggrandizement,  no  frenzied  fanaticism  can  efface  it.  The 
amendment  is  hi  these  words : 

"  The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the  Constitution,  nor 
prohibited  by  it  to  the  states,  are  reserved  to  the  states  respectively,  or  to  the 
people." 

This  view  of  the  subject  is  confirmed,  if  indeed  any  corroborative  evidence 
is  required,  by  reference  to  the  proceedings  and  debates  of  the  Federal  Con 
vention,  as  reported  by  Mr.  Madison.  On  the  18th  of  August,  after  a  series 
of  resolutions  had  been  adopted  as  the  basis  of  the  proposed  Constitution 
and  referred  to  the  Committee  of  Detail  for  the  purpose  of  being  put  in  proper 
form,  the  record  says : 

"  Mr.  Madison  submitted,  in  order  to  be  referred  to  the  Committee  of  Do- 


484  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

tail,  the  following  powers,  as  proper  to  be  added  to  those  of  the  general  Leg 
islature  (Congress) : 

"  To  dispose  of  the  unappropriated  lands  of  the  United  States. 

'To  institute  temporary  governments  for  the  new  states  arising  therein. 

"  To  regulate  affairs  with  the  Indians,  as  well  within  as  without  the  limits 
of  the  United  States. 

"  To  exercise  exclusively  legislative  authority  at  the  seat  of  the  general 

government,  and  over  a  district  around  the  same  not  exceeding square 

miles,  the  consent  of  the  Legislature  of  the  state  or  states  comprising  the 
same  being  first  obtained." 

Here  we  find  the  original  and  rough  draft  of  these  several  powers  as  they 
now  exist,  in  their  revised  form,  in  the  Constitution.  The  provision  empow 
ering  Congress  "to  dispose  of  the  unappropriated  lands  of  the  United  States" 
was  modified  and  enlarged  so  as  to  include  "other  property  belonging  to  the 
United  States,"  and  to  authorize  Congress  to  "make  all  needful  rules  and 
regulations"  for  the  preservation,  management,  and  sale  of  the  same. 

The  provision  empowering  Congress  "to  institute  temporary  governments 
for  the  new  states  arising  in  the  unappropriated  lands  of  the  United  States," 
taken  in  connection  with  the  one  empowering  Congress  "  to  exercise  exclu 
sively  legislative  authority  at  the  seat  of  the  general  government,  and  over 
a  district  of  country  around  the  same,"  clearly  shows  the  difference  in  the 
extent  and  nature  of  the  powers  intended  to  be  conferred  in  the  new  states 
or  territories  on  the  one  hand,  and  in  the  District  of  Columbia  on  the  other. 
In  the  one  case  it  was  proposed  to  authorize  Congress  "  to  institute  temporary 
governments  for  the  new  states,"  or  territories,  as  they  are  now  called,  just 
as  our  Revolutionary  fathers  recognized  the  right  of  the  British  crown  to  in 
stitute  local  governments  for  the  colonies,  by  issuing  charters,  under  which 
the  people  of  the  colonies  were  "  entitled  (according  to  the  Bill  of  Bights 
adopted  by  the  Continental  Congress)  to  a  free  and  exclusive  power  of  legis 
lation,  in  their  several  Provincial  Legislatures,  where  their  right  of  represen 
tation  can  alone  be  preserved,  in  all  cases  of  taxation  and  internal  polity;" 
while,  in  the  other  case,  it  was  proposed  to  authorize  Congress  to  exercise, 
exclusively,  legislative  authority  over  the  municipal  and  internal  polity  of 
the  people  residing  within  the  district  which  should  be  ceded  for  that  pur 
pose  as  the  seat  of  the  general  government. 

Each  of  these  provisions  was  modified  and  perfected  by  the  Committees  of 
Detail  and  Revision,  as  will  appear  by  comparing  them  with  the  correspond 
ing  clauses  as  finally  incorporated  into  the  Constitution.  The  provision  to 
authorize  Congress  to  institute  temporary  governments  for  the  new  states  or 
territories,  and  to  provide  for  their  admission  into  the  Union,  appears  in  the 
Constitution  in  this  form : 

"  New  states  may  be  admitted  by  the  Congress  into  this  Union." 

The  power  to  admit  "  new  states,"  and  "  to  make  all  laws  which  shall  be 
necessary  and  proper"  to  that  end,  may  fairly  be  construed  to  include  the 
right  to  institute  temporary  governments  for  such  new  states  or  territories, 
the  same  as  Great  Britain  could  rightfully  institute  similar  governments  for 
the  colonies ;  but  certainly  not  to  authorize  Congress  to  legislate  in  respect 
to  their  municipal  affairs  and  internal  concerns,  without  violating  that  great 
fundamental  principle  in  defense  of  which  the  battles  of  the  Revolution  were 
fought. 

If  judicial  authority  were  deemed  necessary  to  give  force  to  principles  so 
eminently  just  in  themselves,  and  which  form  the  basis  of  our  entire  political 
system,  such  authority  may  be  found  in  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  in  the  Dred  Scott  case.  In  that  case  the  Court  say : 

"  This  brings  us  to  examine  by  what  provision  of  the  Constitution  the  present 
Federal  government,  under  its  delegated  and  restricted  powers,  is  authorized 


THE   CINCINNATI   PLATFORM.  485 

to  acquire  territory  outside  of  the  original  limits  of  the  United  States,  and 
what  powers  it  may  exercise  therein  over  the  person  or  property  of  a  citi 
zen  of  the  United  States,  while  it  remains  a  territory,  and  until  it  shall  be 
admitted  as  one  of  the  States  of  the  Union. 

"  There  is  certainly  no  power  given  by  the  Constitution  to  the  Federal 
government  to  establish  or  maintain  colonies,  bordering  on  the  United  States 
or  at  a  distance,  to  be  ruled  and  governed  at  its  own  pleasure  ;  nor  to  en 
large  its  territorial  limits  in  any  way  except  by  the  admission  of  new  states  .  .  . 

"The  power  to  expand  the  territory  of  the  United  States  by  the  admission 
of  new  states  is  plainly  given ;  and  in  the  construction  of  this  power  by  all 
the  departments  of  the  government,  it  has  been  held  to  authorize  the  acqui 
sition  of  territory,  not  fit  for  admission  at  the  time,  but  to  be  admitted  as 
soon  as  its  population  and  situation  would  entitle  it  to  admission.  It  is  ac 
quired  to  become  a  state,  and  not  to  be  held  as  a  colony  and  governed  by 
Congress  with  absolute  authority ;  and  as  the  propriety  of  admitting  a  new 
state  is  committed  to  the  sound  discretion  of  Congress,  the  power  to  acquire 
territory  for  that  purpose,  to  be  held  by  the  United  States  until  it  is  in  a  suit 
able  condition  to  become  a  state  upon  an  equal  footing  with  the  other  states, 
must  rest  upon  the  same  discretion." 

Having  determined  the  question  that  the  power  to  acquire  territory  for  the 
purpose  of  enlarging  our  territorial  limits  and  increasing  the  number  of  states 
is  included  within  the  power  to  admit  new  states  and  conferred  by  the  same 
clause  of  the  Constitution,  the  Court  proceeded  to  say  that  "  the  power  to 
acquire  necessarily  carries  with  it  the  power  to  preserve  and  apply  to  the 
purposes  for  which  it  was  acquired."  And  again,  referring  to  a  former  de 
cision  of  the  same  Court  in  respect  to  the  power  of  Congress  to  institute  gov 
ernments  for  the  territories,  the  Court  say : 

"  The  power  stands  firmly  on  the  latter  alternative  put  by  the  Court — that 
is,  as  the  inevitable  consequence  of  the  right  to  acquire  territory." 

The  power  to  acquire  territory,  as  well  as  the  right,  in  the  language  of 
Mr.  Madison,  "  to  institute  temporary  governments  for  the  new  states  arising 
therein"  (or  territorial  governments,  as  they  are  now  called),  having  been 
traced  to  that  provision  of  the  Constitution  which  provides  for  the  admission 
of  "new  states,"  the  Court  proceed  to  consider  the  nature  and  extent  of  the 
power  of  Congress  over  the  people  of  the  territories : 

"  All  we  mean  to  say  on  this  point  is,  that,  as  there  is  no  express  regula 
tion  in  the  Constitution  defining  the  power  which  the  general  government 
may  exercise  over  the  person  or  property  of  a  citizen  in  a  territory  thus  ac 
quired,  the  Court  must  necessarily  look  to  the  provisions  and  principles  of 
the  Constitution,  and  its  distribution  of  powers,  for  the  rules  and  principles 
by  which  its  decision  must  be  governed. 

"  Taking  this  rule  to  guide  us,  it  may  be  safely  assumed  that  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  who  emigrate  to  a  territory  belonging  to  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  can  not  be  ruled  as  mere  colonists,  dependent  upon  the  will 
of  the  general  government,  and  to  be  governed  by  any  laws  it  may  think 
proper  to  impose.  .  .  .  The  territory  being  a  part  of  the  United  States, 
the  government  and  the  citizen  both  enter  it  under  the  authority  of  the  Con 
stitution,  with  their  respective  rights  defined  and  marked  out ;  and  the 
federal  government  can  exercise  no  power  over  his  person  or  property  beyond 
what  that  instrument  confers,  nor  lawfully  deny  any  right  which  it  has  re 
served." 

Hence,  inasmuch  as  the  Constitution  has  conferred  on  the  Federal  govern 
ment  no  right  to  interfere  with  the  property,  domestic  relations,  police 
regulations,  or  internal  polity  of  the  people  of  the  territories,  it  necessarily 
follows,  under  the  authority  of  the  Court,  that  Congress  can  rightfully  exer 
cise  no  such  power  over  the  people  of  the  territories.  For  this  reason  alone, 


486  LIFE  OP  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

the  Supreme  Court  were  authorized  and  compelled  to  pronounce  the  eighth 
section  of  the  act  approved  March  6,  1820  (commonly  called  the  Missouri 
Compromise),  inoperative  and  void — there  being  no  power  delegated  to 
Congress  in  the  Constitution  authorizing  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the 
territories. 

In  the  course  of  the  discussion  of  this  question  the  Court  gave  an  elabor 
ate  exposition  of  the  structure,  principles,  and  powers  of  the  Federal  govern 
ment  ;  showing  that  it  possesses  no  powers  except  those  which  are  delegated, 
enumerated,  and  defined  in  the  Constitution ;  and  that  all  other  powers  are 
either  prohibited  altogether  or  are  reserved  to  the  states,  or  to  the  people.  In 
order  to  show  that  the  prohibited  as  well  as  the  delegated  powers  are  enu 
merated  and  defined  in  the  Constitution,  the  Court  enumerated  certain  pow 
ers  which  can  not  be  exercised  either  by  Congress  or  by  the  territorial  Leg 
islatures,  or  by  any  other  authority  whatever,  for  the  simple  reason  that  they 
are  forbidden  by  the  Constitution. 

Some  persons,  who  have  not  examined  critically  the  opinion  of  the  Court 
hi  this  respect,  have  been  induced  to  believe  that  the  slavery  question  was 
included  in  this  class  of  prohibited  powers,  and  that  the  Court  had  decided 
in  the  Dread  Scott  case  that  the  territorial  Legislature  could  not  legislate  in 
respect  to  slave  property  the  same  as  all  other  property  in  the  territories. 
A  few  extracts  from  the  opinin  of  the  Court  will  correct  this  error,  and 
show  clearly  the  class  of  powers  to  which  the  Court  referred,  as  being  forbid 
den  alike  to  the  Federal  government,  to  the  states,  and  to  the  territories. 
The  Court  say : 

"  A  reference  to  a  few  of  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  will  illustrate 
this  proposition.  For  example,  no  one,  we  presume,  will  contend  that  Con 
gress  can  make  any  law  in  a  territory  respecting  the  establishment  of  reli 
gion,  or  the  free  exercise  thereof,  or  abridging  the  freedom  of  speech  or  of 
the  press,  or  the  right  of  the  people  of  the  territory  peaceably  to  assemble, 
and  to  petition  the  government  for  the  redress  of  grievances. 

"  Nor  can  Congress  deny  to  the  people  the  right  to  keep  and  bear  arms, 
nor  the  right  to  trial  by  jury,  nor  compel  any  one  to  be  a  witness  against 
himself  in  a  criminal  proceeding.  ...  So,  too,  it  will  hardly  be  contended 
that  Congress  could  by  law  quarter  a  soldier  in  a  house  in  a  territory  with 
out  the  consent  of  the  owner  in  a  time  of  peace ;  nor  in  time  of  war  but  in  a 
manner  prescribed  by  law.  Nor  could  they  by  law  forfeit  the  property  of  a 
citizen  in  a  territory  who  was  convicted  of  treason,  for  a  longer  period  than 
the  life  of  the  person  convicted,  nor  take  private  property  for  public  use  with 
out  just  compensation. 

"  The  powers  over  persons  and  property,  of  which  we  speak,  are  not  only 
not  granted  to  Congress,  but  are  in  express  terms  denied,  and  they  are  for 
bidden  to  exercise  them.  And  this  prohibition  is  not  confined  to  the  states, 
but  the  words  are  general,  and  extend  to  the  whole  territory  over  which  the 
Constitution  gives  it  power  to  legislate,  including  those  portions  of  it  re 
maining  under  territorial  governments,  as  well  as  that  covered  by  states. 

"It  is  a  total  absence  of  power,  everywhere  within  the  dominion  of  the 
United  States,  and  places  the  citizens  of  a  territory,  so  far  as  these  rights  are 
concerned,  on  the  same  footing  with  citizens  of  the  states,  and  guards  them 
as  firmly  and  plainly  against  any  inroads  which  the  general  government 
might  attempt,  under  the  plea  of  implied  or  incidental  powers.  And  if  Con 
gress  itself  can  not  do  this — if  it  is  beyond  the  powers  conferred  on  the 
Federal  government — it  will  be  admitted,  we  presume,  that  it  could  not  au 
thorize  a  territorial  government,  established  by  its  authority,  to  violate  the 
provisions  of  the  Constitution." 

Nothing  can  be  more  certain  than  that  the  Court  where  here  speaking  only 
of  forbidden  powers,  which  were  denied  alike  to  Congress,  to  the  state  legisla- 


THE  CINCINNATI   PLATFOKM.  487 

tures,  and  to  the  territorial  legislatures,  and  that  the  prohibition  extends 
"  every  where  within  the  dominion  of  the  United  States,"  applicable  equally 
to  states  and  territories,  as  well  as  to  the  United  States. 

If  this  sweeping  prohibition — this  just  but  inexorable  restriction  upon  the 
powers  of  government — federal,  state,  and  territorial— shall  ever  be  held  to 
include  the  slavery  question,  thus  negativing  the  right  of  the  people  of  the 
states  and  territories,  as  well  as  the  federal  government,  to  control  it  by  law 
(and  it  will  be  observed  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  Court  "  the  citizens  of  a 
territory,  so  far  as  these  rights  are  concerned,  are  on  the  same  footing  with 
the  citizens  of  the  states"),  then,  indeed,  will  the  doctrine  become  firmly  es 
tablished  that  the  principles  of  law  applicable  to  African  slavery  are  uniform 
throughout  the  dominion  of  the  United  States,  and  that  there  "  is  an  irrepressi 
ble  conflict  between  opposing  and  enduring  forces,  which  means  that  the 
United  States  must  and  will,  sooner  or  later,  become  either  entirely  a  slave- 
holding  nation  or  entirely  a  free-labor  nation." 

Notwithstanding  the  disastrous  consequences  which  would  inevitably  re 
sult  from  the  authorative  recognition  and  practical  operation  of  such  a  doc 
trine,  there  are  those  who  maintain  that  the  Court  referred  to  and  included 
the  slavery  question  within  that  class  of  forbidden  powers  which  (although 
the  same  in  the  territories  as  in  the  states)  could  not  be  exercised  by  the  peo 
ple  of  the  territories. 

If  this  proposition  were  true,  which  fortunately  for  the  peace  and  welfare 
of  the  whole  country  it  is  not,  the  conclusion  would  inevitably  result,  which 
they  logically  deduce  from  the  premises — that  the  Constitution  by  the  recog 
nition  of  slavery  establishes  it  in  the  territories  beyond  the  power  of  the  peo 
ple  to  control  it  by  law,  and  guarantees  to  every  citizen  the  right  to  go  there 
and  be  protected  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  slave  property ;  and  when  all  other 
remedies  fail  for  the  protection  of  such  rights  of  property,  it  becomes  the  im 
perative  duty  of  Congress  (to  the  performance  of  which  every  member  is 
bound  by  his  conscience  and  his  oath,  and  from  4which  no  consideration  of 
political  policy  or  expediency  can  release  him)  to  provide  by  law  such  ade 
quate  and  complete  protection  as  is  essential  to  the  full  enjoyment  of  an  im 
portant  right  secured  by  the  Constitution.  If  the  proposition  be  true,  that 
the  Constitution  establishes  slavery  in  the  territories  beyond  the  power  of  the 
people  legally  to  control  it,  another  result,  no  less  startling,  and  from  which 
there  is  no  escape,  must  inevitably  follow.  The  Constitution  is  uniform 
"  every  where  within  the  dominions  of  the  United  States" — is  the  same  in 
Pennsylvania  as  hi  Kansas — and  if  it  be  true,  as  stated  by  the  President  in  a 
special  message  to  Congress,  "  that  slavery  exists  in  Kansas  by  virtue  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,"  and  that  "Kansas  is  therefore  at  this  mo 
ment  as  much  a  slave  state  as  Georgia  or  South  Carolina,"  why  does  it  not 
exist  in  Pennsylvania  by  virtue  of  the  same  Constitution  ? 

If  it  be  said  that  Pennsylvania  is  a  Sovereign  State,  and  therefore  has  a 
right  to  regulate  the  slavery  question  within  her  own  limits  to  suit  herself,  it 
must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  sovereignty  of  Pennsylvania,  like  that  of 
every  other  state,  is  limited  by  the  Constitution,  which  provides  that : 

"  This  Constitution,  and  all  laws  of  the  United  States  which  shall  be  made 
in  pursuance  thereof,  and  all  treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be  made,  under 
the  authority  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  and 
the  judges  in  every  state  shall  be  bound  thereby,  any  thing  in  the  Constitution 
or  laws  of  any  state  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding" 

Hence,  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  with  her  Constitution  and  laws,  and 
domestic  institutions,  and  internal  policy,  is  subordinate  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  in  the  same  manner,  and  to  the  same  extent,  as  the  Terri 
tory  of  Kansas.  The  Kansas-Nebraska  Act  says  that  the  Territory  of  Kan 
sas  shall  exercise  legislative  power  over,  "  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation 


488  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

consistent  with  the  Constitution,"  and  that  the  people  of  said  territory  shall 
be  left  "  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  then- 
own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States."  The  pro 
visions  of  this  act  are  believed  to  be  in  entire  harmony  with  the  Constitution, 
and  under  them  the  people  of  Kansas  possess  every  right,  privilege,  and  im 
munity,  in  respect  to  their  internal  polity  and  domestic  relations  which  the 
people  of  Pennsylvania  can  exercise  under  their  Constitution  and  laws.  Each 
is  invested  with  full,  complete,  and  exclusive  powers  in  this  respect,  "subject 
only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

The  question  recurs  then,  if  the  Constitution  does  establish  slavery  in  Kan 
sas  or  any  other  territory  beyond  the-  power  of  the  people  to  control  it  by  law, 
how  can  the  conclusion  be  resisted  that  slavery  is  established  in  like  manner 
and  by  the  same  authority  in  all  the  states  of  the  Union  ?  And  if  it  be  the 
imperative  duty  of  Congress  to  provide  by  law  for  the  protection  of  slave 
property  in  the  territories  upon  the  ground  that  "  slavery  exists  in  Kansas" 
(and  consequently  in  every  other  territory),  "by  virtue  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,"  why  is  it  not  also  the  duty  of  Congress,  for  the  same 
reason,  to  provide  similar  protection  to  slave  property  in  all  the  states  of  the 
Union,  when  the  Legislatures  fail  to  furnish  such  protection  ? 

"Without  confessing  or  attempting  to  avoid  the  inevitable  consequences  of 
their  own  doctrine,  its  advocates  endeavor  to  fortify  their  position  by  citing 
the  Dred  Scott  decision  to  prove  that  the  Constitution  recognizes  property  in 
slaves — that  there  is  no  legal  distinction  between  this  and  every  other  de 
scription  of  property — that  slave  property  and  every  other  kind  of  property 
stand  on  an  equal  footing — that  Congress  has  no  more  power  over  the  one 
than  over  the  other — and,  consequently,  can  not  discriminate  between  them. 

Upon  this  point  the  Court  say : 

"How  as  we  have  already  said  in  an  earlier  part  of  this  opinion,  upon  a  dif 
ferent  point,  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed 
in  the  Constitution.  .  .  .  And  if  the  Constitution  recognizes  the  right 
of  property  of  the  master  in  a  slave,  and  makes  no  distinction  between  that 
description  of  property  and  other  property  owned  by  a  citizen,  no  tribunal 
acting  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  whether  it  be  legislative, 
executive,  or  judicial,  has  a  right  to  draw  such  a  distinction,  or  deny  to  it  the 
benefit  of  the  provisions  and  guarantees  which  have  been  provided  for  the 
protection  of  private  property  against  the  encroachments  of  the  government. 

.  .  .  And  the  government  in  express  terms  is  pledged  to  protect  it  in 
all  future  time,  if  the  slave  escapes  from  his  owner.  This  is  done  in  plain 
words — too  plain  to  be  misunderstood.  And  no  word  can  be  found  in  the 
Constitution  which  gives  Congress  a  greater  power  over  slave  property,  or 
which  entitles  property  of  that  kind  to  less  protection  than  property  of  any 
other  description.  The  only  power  conferred  is  the  power  coupled  with  the 
duty  of  guarding  and  protecting  the  owner  in  his  rights." 

The  rights  of  the  owner  which  it  is  thus  made  the  duty  of  the  Federal  gov 
ernment  to  guard  and  protect  are  those  expressly  provided  for  in  the  Consti 
tution,  and  defined  in  clear  and  explicit  language  by  the  Court — that  "  the 
government,  in  express  terms,  is  pledged  to  protect  it  (slave  property)  in  all 
future  time,  if  the  slave  escapes  from  his  owner"  This  is  the  only  contingency, 
according  to  the  plain  reading  of  the  Constitution  as  authoritatively  inter 
preted  by  the  Supreme  Court,  in  which  the  Federal  government  is  authorized, 
required,  or  permitted  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the  states  or  territories ; 
and  in  that  case  only  for  the  purpose  "of  guarding  and  protecting  the  owner 
in  his  rights"  to  reclaim  his  slave  property.  In  all  other  respects  slaves 
stand  on  the  same  footing  with  all  other  property — "  the  Constitution  makes 
no  distinction  between  that  description  of  property  and  other  property  owned 
by  a  citizen  j"  and  "  no  word  can  be  found  in  the  Constitution  which  gives 


THE   CINCINNATI   PLATFORM.  489 

Congress  a  greater  power  over  slave  property,  or  which  entitles  property  of 
that  kind  to  less  protection  than  property  of  any  other  description."  This  is 
the  basis  upon  which  all  rights  pertaining  to  slave  property,  either  in  the 
states  or  the  territories,  stand  under  the  Constitution  as  expounded  by  the 
Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case. 

Inasmuch  as  the  Constitution  has  delegated  no  power  to  the  Federal  gov 
ernment  in  respect  to  any  other  kind  of  property  belonging  to  the  citizen — 
neither  introducing,  establishing,  prohibiting,  nor  excluding  it  any  where 
within  the  dominion  of  the  United  States,  but  leaves  the  owner  thereof  per 
fectly  free  to  remove  into  any  state  or  territory  and  carry  his  property  with 
him,  and  hold  the  same  subject  to  the  local  law,  and  relying  upon  the  local 
authorities  for  protection,  it  follows,  according  to  the  decision  of  the  Court, 
that  slave  property  stands  on  the  same  footing,  is  entitled  to  the  same  rights 
and  immunities,  and  in  like  manner  is  dependent  upon  the  local  authorities 
and  laws  for  protection. 

The  Court  refer  to  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  provides  for  the  ren 
dition  of  fugitive  slaves  as  their  authority  for  saying  that  the  "  right  of  property 
in  slaves  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution."  By  refer 
ence  to  that  provision  it  will  be  seen  that,  while  the  word  u  slaves"  is  not 
used,  still  the  Constitution  not  only  recognizes  the  right  of  property  in  slaves, 
as  stated  by  the  Court,  but  explicitly  states  what  class  of  persons  shall  be 
deemed  slaves,  and  under  what  laws  or  authority  they  may  be  held  to  ser 
vitude,  and  under  what  circumstances  fugitive  slaves  shall  be  restored  to 
their  owners,  all  in  the  same  section,  as  follows : 

"  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  state,  under  the  laws  thereof, 
escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein, 
be  discharged  from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim 
of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due." 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  a  slave,  within  the  meaning  of  the  Constitution, 
is  a  "  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  state,  under  the  laws  thereof" — 
not  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  nor  by  the  laws  thereof,  nor 
by  virtue  of  any  Federal  authority  whatsoever,  but  under  the  laws  of  the 
particular  state  where  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due. 

It  was  necessary  to  give  this  exact  definition  of  slavery  in  the  Constitu 
tion  in  order  to  satisfy  the  people  of  the  South  as  well  as  of  the  North.  The 
slaveholding  states  would  never  consent  for  a  moment  that  their  domestic 
relations — and  especially  their  right  of  property  in  their  slaves — should  be 
dependent  upon  Federal  authority,  or  that  Congress  should  have  any  power 
over  the  subject — either  to  extend,  confine,  or  restrain  it ;  much  less  to  pro 
tect  or  regulate  it — lest,  under  the  pretense  of  protection  and  regulation,  the 
Federal  government,  under  the  influence  of  the  strong  and  increasing  anti- 
slavery  sentiment  which  prevailed  at  that  period,  might  destroy  the  institu 
tion,  and  divest  those  rights  of  property  in  slaves  which  were  sacred  under 
the  laws  and  Constitutions  of  their  respective  states  so  long  as  the  Federal 
government  had  no  power  to  interfere  with  the  subject. 

In  like  manner  the  non-slaveholding  states,  while  they  were  entirely  will 
ing  to  provide  for  the  surrender  of  all  fugitive  slaves — as  is  conclusively  shown 
by  the  unanimous  vote  of  all  the  states  in  the  Convention  for  the  provision 
now  under  consideration — and  to  leave  each  state  perfectly  free  to  hold 
slaves  under  its  own  laws,  and  by  virtue  of  its  own  separate  and  exclusive 
authority,  so  long  as  it  pleased,  and  to  abolish  it  when  it  chose,  were  un 
willing  to  become  responsible  for  its  existence  by  incorporating  it  into  the 
Constitution  as  a  national  institution,  to  be  protected  and  regulated,  ex 
tended  and  controlled  by  Federal  authority,  regardless  of  the  wishes  of  the 
people,  and  in  defiance  of  the  local  laws  of  the  several  states  and  territories. 
For  these  opposite  reasons  the  southern  and  northern  states  r.nited  in  giv- 

X2 


490  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

ing  a  unanimous  vote  in  the  Convention  for  that  provision  of  the  Constitu 
tion  which  recognizes  slavery  as  a  local  institution  in  the  several  states  where 
it  exists,  "  under  the  laws  thereof,"  and  provides  for  the  surrender  of  fugitive 
slaves. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  term  "  state"  is  used  in  this  provision,  as  well 
as  in  various  other  parts  of  the  Constitution,  in  the  same  sense  in  which  it 
was  used  by  Mr.  Jefferson  in  his  plan  for  establishing  governments  for  the 
new  states  in  the  territory  ceded  and  to  be  ceded  to  the  United  states,  and 
by  Mr.  Madison  in  his  proposition  to  confer  on  Congress  power  "  to  institute 
temporary  governments  for  the  new  states  arising  in  the  unappropriated  lands 
of  the  United  States,"  to  designate  the  political  communities,  territories  as 
well  as  states,  within  the  dominion  of  the  United  States.  The  word  "  states" 
is  used  in  the  same  sense  in  the  ordinance  of  the  13th  July,  1787,  for  the 
government  of  the  territory  northwest  of  the  River  Ohio,  which  was  passed 
by  the  remnant  of  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation,  sitting  in  New  York 
while  its  most  eminent  members  were  at  Philadelphia,  as  delegates  to  the 
Federal  Convention,  aiding  in  the  formation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States. 

In  this  sense  the  word  "  states"  is  used  in  the  clause  providing  for  the 
rendition  of  fugitive  slaves,  applicable  to  all  political  communities  under  the 
authority  of  the  United  States,  including  the  territories  as  well  as  the  several 
states  of  the  Union.  Under  any  other  construction  the  right  of  the  owner 
to  recover  his  slave  would  be  restricted  to  the  states  of  the  Union,  leaving 
the  territories  a  secure  place  of  refuge  for  all  fugitives.  The  same  remark  is 
applicable  to  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  provides  that  "  a  person 
charged  in  any  state  with  treason,  felony,  or  other  crime,  who  shall  flee  from 
justice,  and  be  found  in  another  state,  shall,  on  the  demand  of  the  executive 
authority  of  the  state  from  which  he  fled,  be  delivered  up  to  be  removed  to 
the  state  having  jurisdiction  of  the  crime."  Unless  the  term  state,  as  used 
in  these  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  shall  be  construed  to  include  every 
distinct  political  community  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  and 
to  apply  to  territories  as  well  as  to  the  states  of  the  Union,  the  territories 
must  become  a  sanctuary  for  all  the  fugitives  from  service  and  justice,  for 
all  the  felons  and  criminals  who  shall  escape  from  the  several  states  and 
seek  refuge  and  immunity  in  the  territories. 

If  any  other  illustration  were  necessary  to  show  that  the  political  commu 
nities  which  we  now  call  territories  (but  which,  during  the  whole  period  of 
the  Confederation  and  the  formation  of  the  Constitution,  were  always  re 
ferred  to  as  "  states"  or  "  new  states"),  are  recognized  as  "  states"  in  some 
of  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  they  may  be  found  in  those  clauses 
which  declare  that  "  no  state"  shall  enter  into  any  "  treaty,  alliance,  or  con 
federation  ;  grant  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal ;  coin  money ;  emit  bills  of 
credit;  make  any  thing  but  gold  and  silver  and  coin  a  tender  in  payment  of 
debts ;  pass  any  bill  of  attainder,  ex  post  facto  law,  or  law  impairing  the  obli 
gation  of  contracts,  or  grant  any  title  of  nobility." 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  each  of  these  cases  where  the  power  is  not 
expressly  delegated  to  Congress  the  prohibition  is  not  imposed  upon  the  Fed 
eral  government,  but  upon  the  states.  There  was  no  necessity  for  any  such 
prohibition  upon  Congress  or  the  Federal  government,  for  the  reason  that 
the  omission  to  delegate  any  such  powers  in  the  Constitution  was  of  itself  a 
prohibition,  and  so  declared  in  express  terms  by  the  tenth  amendment,  which 
declares  that  "  the  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the  Consti 
tution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  states,  are  reserved  to  the  states  respec 
tively,  or  to  the  people." 

Hence  it  would  certainly  be  competent  for  the  states  and  territories  to  ex 
ercise  these  powers  but  for  the  prohibition  contained  in  those  provisions  of 


THE   CINCINNATI   PLATFOKM.  491 

the  Constitution;  and  inasmuch  as  the  prohibition  only  extends  to  the 
"  states,"  the  people  of  the  "territories"  are  still  at  liberty  to  exercise  them, 
unless  the  territories  are  included  within  the  term  states,  within  the  mean 
ing  of  these  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

It  only  remains  to  be  shown  that  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850  and 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act  of  1854  are  in  perfect  harmony  with,  and  a  faith 
ful  embodiment  of  the  principles  herein  enforced.  A  brief  history  of  these 
measures  will  disclose  the  principles  upon  which  they  are  founded. 

On  the  29th  of  January,  1850,  Mr.  Clay  introduced  into  the  Senate  a 
series  of  resolutions  upon  the  slavery  question  which  were  intended  to  form 
the  basis  of  the  subsequent  legislation  upon  that  subject.  Pending  the  dis 
cussion  of  these  resolutions  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories 
prepared  and  reported  to  the  Senate,  on  the  25th  of  March,  two  bills — one 
for  the  admission  of  California  into  the  Union  of  states,  and  the  other  for  the 
organization  of  the  territories  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico,  and  for  the  adjust 
ment  of  the  disputed  boundary  of  the  State  of  Texas,  which  were  read  twice 
and  printed  for  the  use  of  the  Senate.  On  the  19th  of  April  a  select  com 
mittee  of  thirteen  was  appointed,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Foote,  of  Mississippi,  of 
which  Mr.  Clay  was  made  chairman,  and  to  which  were  referred  all  pending 
propositions  relating  to  the  slavery  question.  On  the  8th  of  May,  Mr.  Clay, 
from  the  select  committee  of  thirteen,  submitted  to  the  Senate  an  elaborate 
report  covering  all  the  points  in  controversy,  accompanied  by  a  bill,  which 
is  usually  known  as  the  "  Omnibus  Bill."  By  reference  to  the  provisions  of 
of  this  bill,  as  it  appears  on  the  files  of  the  Senate,  it  will  be  seen  that  it  is 
composed  of  the  two  printed  bills  which  had  been  reported  by  the  Com 
mittee  on  Territories  on  the  25th  of  March  previous;  and  that  the  only 
material  change  in  its  provisions,  involving  an  important  and  essential  prin 
ciple,  is  to  be  found  in  the  tenth  section,  which  prescribes  and  defines  the 
powers  of  the  territorial  Legislature.  In  the  bill,  as  reported  by  the  Com 
mittee  on  Territories,  the  legislative  power  of  the  territories  extended  to 
"  rightful  subjects  of  legislation  consistent  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,"  without  excepting  African  slavery  ;  while  the  bill,  as  reported  by  the 
committee  of  thirteen,  conferred  the  same  power  on  the  territorial  Legisla 
ture,  with  the  exception  of  African  slavery.  This  portion  of  the  section  in  its 
original  form  read  thus : 

"  And  be  it  further  enacted  thai,  the  legislative  power  of  the  territory  shall 
extend  to  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation  consistent  with  the  'Constitution 
of  the  United  States  and  the  provisions  of  this  act ;  but  no  law  shall  be 
passed  interfering  with  the  primary  disposition  of  the  soil." 

To  which  the  committee  of  thirteen  added  these  words :  "  Nor  in  respect 
to  African  slavery.'11  When  the  bill  came  up  for  action  on  the  15th  of  May, 
Mr.  Davis,  of  Mississippi,  said : 

"  I  offer  the  following  amendment.  To  strike  out,  in  the  sixth  line  of  the 
tenth  section,  the  words  '  in  respect  to  African  slavery*  and  insert  the  words 
'  with  those  rights  of  property  growing  out  of  the  institution  of  African  slavery 
as  its  exists  in  any  of  the  states  of  the  Union.''  The  object  of  the  amendment 
is  to  prevent  the  territorial  Legislature  from  legislating  against  the  rights  of 

property  growing  out  of  the  institution  of  slavery.- It  will  leave  to 

the  territorial  Legislatures  those  rights  and  powers  which  are  essentially 
necessary,  not  only  to  the  preservation  of  property,  but  to  the  peace  of  the 
territory.  It  will  leave  the  right  to  make  such  police  regulations  as  are  nec 
essary  to  prevent  disorder,  and  which  will  be  absolutely  necessary  with  such 
property  as  that  to  secure  its  beneficial  use  to  its  owner.  With  this  brief 
explanation  I  submit  the  amendment." 

Mr.  Clay,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Davis,  said : 

"I  am  not  perfectly  sure  that  I  comprehend  the  full  meaning  of  the  amend- 


492  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS. 

merit  offered  by  the  senator  from  Mississippi.  If  1  do,  I  think  he  accom 
plishes  nothing  by  striking  out  the  clause  now  in  the  bill  and  inserting  that 
which  he  proposes  to  insert.  The  clause  now  in  the  bill  is,  that  the  territo 
rial  legislation  shall  not  extend  to  any  thing  respecting  African  slavery 
within  the  territories.  The  effect  of  retaining  the  clause  as  reported  by  the 
committee  will  be  this :  That  if  in  any  of  the  territories  slavery  now  exists, 
it  shall  not  be  abolished  by  the  territorial  Legislature  ;  and  if  in  any  of  the 
territories  slavery  does  not  now  exist,  it  can  not  be  introduced  by  the  terri 
torial  Legislature.  The  clause  itself  was  introduced  into  the  bill  by  the 
committee  for  the  purpose  of  tying  up  the  hands  of  the  territorial  Legisla 
ture  in  respect  to  legislating  at  all,  one  way  or  the  other,  upon  the  subject 
of  African  slavery.  It  was  intended  to  leave  the  legislation  and  the  law  of 
the  respective  territories  in  the  condition  in  which  the  act  will  find  them.  I 
stated  on  a  former  occasion  that  I  did  not,  in  committee,  vote  for  the  amend 
ment  to  insert  the  clause,  though  it  was  proposed  to  be  introduced  by  a 
majority  of  the  committee.  I  attached  very  little  consequence  to  it  at  the 
time,  and  I  attach  very  little  to  it  at  present.  It  is  perhaps  of  no  particular 
importance  whatever.  Now,  sir,  if  I  understand  the  measure  proposed  by 
the  senator  from  Mississippi,  it  aims  at  the  same  thing.  I  do  not  understand 
him  as  proposing  that  if  any  one  shall  carry  slaves  into  the  territory — al 
though  by  the  laws  of  the  territory  he  can  not  take  them  there — the  legis 
lative  hands  of  the  territorial  government  should  be  so  tied  as  to  prevent  it 
saying  he  shall  not  enjoy  the  fruits  of  their  labor.  If  the  senator  from  Mis 
sissippi  means  to  say  that — " 

Mr.  Davis: 

"  I  do  mean  to  say  it." 

Mr.  Clay: 

"  If  the  object  of  the  senator  is  to  provide  that  slaves  may  be  introduced 
into  the  territory  contrary  to  the  lex  loci,  and,  being  introduced,  nothing  shall 
be  done  by  the  Legislature  to  impair  the  rights  of  owners  to  hold  the  slaves 
thus  brought  contrary  to  the  local  laws,  I  certainly  can  not  vote  for  it.  In 
doing  so  I  shall  repeat  again  the  expression  of  opinion  which  I  announced 
at  an  early  period  of  the  session." 

Here  we  find  the  line  distinctly  drawn  between  those  who  contended  for 
the  right  to  carry  slaves  into  the  territories  and  hold  them  in  defiance  of  the 
local  law,  and  those  who  contended  that  such  right  was  subject  to  the  local 
law  of  the  territory.  During  the  progress  of  the  discussion  on  the  same  day 
Mr.  Davis,  of  Mississippi,  said  : 

"  We  are  giving,  or  proposing  to  give,  a  government  to  a  territory,  which 
act  rests  upon  the  basis  of  our  right  to  make  such  provision.  We  suppose 
we  have  a  right  to  confer  power.  If  so,  we  may  mark  out  the  limit  to 
which  they  may  legislate,  and  are  bound  not  to  confer  power  beyond  that 
which  exists  in  Congress.  If  we  give  them  power  to  legislate  beyond  that 
we  commit  a  fraud  or  usurpation,  as  it  may  be  done  openly,  covertly,  or  in 
directly." 

To  which  Mr.  Clay  replied  : 

'I  Now,  sir,  I  only  repeat  what  I  have  had  occasion  to  say  before,  that 
while  I  am  willing  to  stand  aside  and  make  no  legislative  enactment  one 
way  or  the  other — to  lay  off  the  territories  without  the  Wilmot  proviso,  on 
the  one  hand,  with  which  I  understand  we  are  threatened,  or  without  an 
attempt  to  introduce  a  clause  for  the  introduction  of  slavery  into  the  terri 
tories.  While  I  am  for  rejecting  both  the  one  and  the  other,  I  am  content 
that  the  law  as  it  exists  shall  prevail ;  and  if  there  be  any  diversity  of  opin 
ion  as  to  what  it  means,  I  am  willing  that  it  shall  be  settled  by  the  highest 
judicial  authority  of  the  country.  While  I  am  content  thus  to  abide  the 


THE   CINCINNATI   PLATFORM.  493 

result,  I  must  say  that  I  can  not  vote  for  any  express  provision  recognizing 
the  right  to  carry  slaves  there." 

To  which  Mr.  Davis  rejoined,  that — 

"It  is  said  our  Revolution  grew  out  of  a  preamble;  and  I  hope  we  have 
something  of  the  same  character  of  the  hardy  men  of  the  Revolution  who  first 
commenced  the  war  with  the  mother  country — something  of  the  spirit  of  that 
bold  Yankee  who  said  he  had  a  right  to  go  to  Concord,  and  that  go  he  would ; 
and  who,  in  the  maintenance  of  that  right,  met  his  death  at  the  hands  of  a 
British  sentinel.  Now,  sir,  if  our  right  to  carry  slaves  into  these  territories  be 
a  constitutional  right,  it  is  our  first  duty  to  maintain  it." 

Pending  the  discussion  which  ensued,  Mr.  Davis,  at  the  suggestion  of  a 
friends,  modified  his  amendment  from,  time  to  time,  until  it  assumed  the  fol 
lowing  shape : 

"Nor  to  introduce  nor  exclude  African  slavery.  Provided  that  nothing 
herein  contained  shall  be  construed  so  as  to  prevent  the  territorial  Legislature 
from  passing  such  laws  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  protection  of  the  rights 
of  property  of  every  kind  which  may  have  been,  or  may  be  hereafter,  con 
formably  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  held  in  or  introduced  into 
said  territory." 

To  which,  on  the  same  day,  Mr.  Chase,  of  Ohio,  offered  the  following  amend 
ment: 

"  Provided  further,  That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  construed  as 
authorizing  or  permitting  the  introduction  of  slavery  or  the  holding  of  persons 
as  property  wTithin  said  territory." 

Upon  these  amendments — the  one  affirming  the  pro-slavery  and  the  other 
the  anti-slavery  position,  in  opposition  to  the  right  of  the  people  of  the  terri 
tories  to  decide  the  slavery  question  for  themselves — Mr.  Douglas  said : 

"  The  position  that  I  have  ever  taken  has  been,  that  this,  and  all  other  ques 
tions  relating  to  the  domestic  affairs  and  domestic  policy  of  the  territories, 
ought  to  be  left  to  the  decision  of  the  people  themselves ;  and  that  we  ought 
to  be  content  with  whatever  way  they  may  decide  the  question,  because  they 
have  a  much  deeper  interest  in  these  matters  than  we  have,  and  know  much 
better  what  institutions  suit  them  than  we,  who  have  never  been  there,  can 
decide  for  them.  I  would  therefore  have  much  preferred  that  that  portion  of 
the  bill  should  have  remained  as  it  was  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Ter 
ritories,  with  no  provision  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  the  one  way  or  the  other. 
And  I  do  hope  yet  that  that  clause  will  be  stricken  out.  I  am  satisfied,  sir, 
that  it  gives  no  strength  to  the  bill.  I  am  satisfied,  even  if  it  did  give  strength 
to  it,  that  it  ought  not  to  be  there,  because  it  is  a  violation  of  principle. — a  vio 
lation  of  that  principle  upon  which  we  have  all  rested  our  defense  of  the  course 
we  have  taken  on  this  question.  I  do  not  see  how  those  of  us  who  have 
taken  the  position  we  have  taken — that  of  non-intervention — and  have  argued 
in  favor  of  the  right  of  the  people  to  legislate  for  themselves  on  this  question, 
can  support  such  a  provision  without  abandoning  all  the  arguments  which  we 
used  in  the  presidential  campaign  in  the  year  1848,  and  the  principles  set 
forth  by  the  honorable  senator  from  Michigan  (Mr.  Cass),  in  that  letter 
which  is  known  as  the  '  Nicholson  Letter.'  We  are  required  to  abandon  that 
platform ;  we  are  required  to  abandon  those  principles,  and  to  stultify  our 
selves,  and  to  adopt  the  opposite  doctrine — and  for  what  ?  In  order  to  say 
that  the  people  of  the  territories  shall  not  have  such  institutions  as  they  shall  deem 
adapted  to  their  condition  and  their  wants.  I  do  not  see,  sir,  how  such  a  pro 
vision  can  be  acceptable  either  to  the  people  of  the  North  or  the  South." 

Upon  the  question,  how  many  inhabitants  a  territory  should  contain  before 
it  should  be  formed  into  a  political  community,  with  the  rights  of  self-govern 
ment,  Mr.  Douglas  said : 

"  The  senator  from  Mississippi  puts  the  question  to  me  as  to  what  number 


494  LIFE  OF  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

of  people  there  must  be  in  a  territory  before  this  right  to  govern  themselves 
accrues.  Without  determining  the  precise  number,  I  will  assume  that  the 
right  ought  to  accrue  to  the  people  at  the  moment  they  have  enough  to  con 
stitute  a  government ;  and,  sir,  the  bill  assumes  that  there  are  people  enough 
there  to  require  a  government,  and  enough  to  authorize  the  people  to  govern 

themselves. Your  bill  concedes  that  a  representative  government  is 

necessary — a  government  founded  upon  the  principles  of  popular  sovereignty 
and  the  right  of  a  people  to  enact  their  own  laws ;  and  for  this  reason  you 
give  them  a  Legislature  composed  of  two  branches,  like  the  Legislatures  of 
the  different  states  and  territories  of  the  Union.  You  confer  upon  them  the 
right  to  legislate  on  'all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation,'  except  negroes.  Why 
except  negroes  ?  Why  except  African  slavery  ?  If  the  inhabitants  are  compe 
tent  to  govern  themselves  upon  all  other  subjects,  and  in  reference  to  all  other 
descriptions  of  property — if  they  are  competent  to  make  laws  and  determine 
the  relations  between  husband  and  wife,  and  parent  and  child,  and  municipal 
laws  affecting  the  rights  and  property  of  citizens  generally,  they  are  compe 
tent  also  to  make  laws  to  govern  themselves  in  relation  to  slavery  and 
negroes." 

With  reference  to  the  protection  of  property  in  slaves,  Mr.  Douglas  said : 

"I  have  a  word  to  say  to  the  honorable  senator  from  Mississippi  (Mr. 
Davis).  He  insists  that  I  am  not  in  favor  of  protecting  property,  and  that  his 
amendment  is  offered  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  property  under  the  Consti 
tution.  Now,  sir,  I  ask  you  what  authority  he  has  for  assuming  that  ?  Do 
I  not  desire  to  protect  property  because  I  wish  to  allow  the  people  to  pass 
such  laws  as  they  deem  proper  respecting  their  rights  to  property  without 
any  exception  ?  He  might  just  as  well  say  that  I  am  opposed  to  protecting 
property  in  merchandise,  in  steamboats,  in  cattle,  in  real  estate,  as  to  say 
that  I  am  opposed  to  protecting  property  of  any  other  description ;  for  I  desiro 
to  put  them  all  on  an  equality,  and  allow  the  people  to  make  their  own  laws 
in  respect  to  the  whole  of  them." 

Mr.  Cass  said  (referring  to  the  amendments  offered  by  Mr.  Davis  and  Mr. 
Chase) : 

" Now  with  respect  to  the  amendmenta  I  shall  vote  against  them  both; 
and  then  I  shall  vote  in  favor  of  striking  out  the  restriction  in  the  bill  upon 
the  power  of  the  territorial  governments.  I  shall  do  so  upon  this  ground.  I 
was  opposed,  as  the  honorable  senator  from  Kentucky  has  declared  he  was,  to 
the  insertion  of  this  prohibition  by  the  committee.  I  consider  it  inexpedient 
and  unconstitutional.  I  have  already  stated  my  belief  that  the  rightful  power 
of  internal  legislation  in  the  territories  belongs  to  the  people." 

After  further  discussion  the  vote  was  taken  by  yeas  and  nays  on  the 
amendment  of  Mr.  Chase,  and  decided  in  the  negative:  yeas,  25;  nays,  30. 
The  question  recurring  on  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Davis,  of  Mississippi,  it  was 
also  rejected:  yeas,  25;  nays,  30.  Whereupon  Mr.  Seward  offered  the  follow 
ing  amendment : 

"  Neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  otherwise  than  by  conviction 
for  crime,  shall  ever  be  allowed  in  either  of  said  Territories  of  Utah  and  New 
Mexico." 

Which  was  rejected:  yeas,  23  ;  nays,  33. 

After  various  other  amendments  had  been  offered  and  voted  upon — all  re 
lating  to  the  power  of  the  territorial  Legislature  over  slavery — Mr.  Douglas 
moved  to  strike  out  all  relating  to  African  slavery,  so  that  the  territorial  Legis 
lature  should  have  the  same  power  over  that  question  as  over  all  other  rightful 
subjects  of  legislation  consistent  with  the  Constitution — which  amendment 
was  rejected.  After  the  rejection  of  this  amendment,  the  discussion  was  re 
newed  with  great  ability  and  depth  of  feeling  in  respect  to  the  powers  which 
the  territorial  Legislature  should  exercise  upon  the  subject  of  slavery.  Various 


THE   CINCINNATI   PLATFORM.  495 

propositions  were  made,  and  amendments  offered  and  rejected — all  relating  to 
this  one  controverted  point — when  Mr.  Norris,  of  New  Hampshire,  renewed 
the  motion  of  Mr.  Douglas,  to  strike  out  the  restriction  on  the  territorial 
Legislature  in  respect  to  African  slavery.  On  the  31st  of  July  this  amend 
ment  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  32  to  19 — restoring  this  section  of  the  bill  to 
the  form  in  which  it  was  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Territories  on  the 
25th  of  March,  and  conferring  on  the  territorial  Legislature  power  over  "  all 
rightful  subjects  of  legislation  consistent  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,"  without  excepting  African  slavery. 

Thus  terminated  this  great  struggle  in  the  affirmance  of  the  principle,  as 
the  basis  of  the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  so  far  as  they  related  to  the 
organization  of  the  territories,  that  the  people  of  the  territories  should  decide  the 
slavery  question  for  themselves  through  the  action  of  their  territorial  Legislatures. 

This  controverted  question  having  been  definitely  settled,  the  Senate  pro 
ceeded  on  the  same  day  to  consider  the  other  portions  of  the  bill,  and  after 
striking  out  all  except  those  provisions  which  provided  for  the  organization  of 
the  Territory  of  Utah,  ordered  the  bill  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading,  and 
on  the  next  day — August  1,  1850 — the  bill  was  read  a  third  time,  and  passed. 

On  the  14th  of  August  the  bill  for  the  organization  of  the  Territory  of  New 
Mexico  was  taken  up,  and  amended  so  as  to  conform  fully  to  the  provisions 
of  the  Utah  Act  in  respect  to  the  power  of  the  territorial  Legislature  over 
"  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation  consistent  with  the  Constitution,"  without 
excepting  African  slavery,  and  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading 
without  a  division;  and  on  the  next  day  the  bill  was  passed — yeas,  27; 
nays,  10. 

These  two  bills  were  sent  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  passed  that 
body  without  any  alteration  in  respect  to  the  power  of  the  territorial  Legisla 
tures  over  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  were  approved  by  President  Filmore 
September  9,  1850. 

In  1852,  when  the  two  great  political  "parties — Whig  and  Democratic — 
into  which  the  country  was  then  divided,  assembled  in  National  Convention 
at  Baltimore  for  the  purpose  of  nominating  candidates  for  the  Presidency  and 
Vice-Presidency,  each  convention  adopted  and  affirmed  the  principles  em 
bodied  in  the  compromise  measures  of  1850  as  rules  of  action  by  which  they 
would  be  governed  in  all  future  cases  in  the  organization  of  territorial  govern 
ments  and  the  admission  of  new  states. 

On  the  4th  of  January,  1854,  the  Committee  on  Territories  of  the  Senate,  to 
which  had  been  referred  a  bill  for  the  organization  of  the  Territory  of  Neb 
raska,  reported  the  bill  back,  with  an  amendment,  in  the  form  of  a  substitute 
for  the  entire  bill,  which,  with  some  modifications,  is  now  known  on  the  stat 
ute  book  as  the  "  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,"  accompanied  by  a  report  explaining 
the  principles  upon  which  it  was  proposed  to  organize  those  territories,  as 
follows : 

"  The  principal  amendments  which  your  committee  deem  it  their  duty  to 
commend  to  the  favorable  action  of  the  Senate,  in  a  special  report,  are  those 
in  which  the  principles  established  by  the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  so 
far  as  they  are  applicable  to  territorial  organizations,  are  proposed  to  be 
affirmed  and  carried  into  practical  operation  witliin  the  limits  of  the  new  terri 
tory.  The  wisdom  of  those  measures  is  attested,  not  less  by  their  salutary 
and  beneficial  effects  in  allaying  sectional  agitation  and  restoring  peace  and 
harmony  to  an  irritated  and  distracted  people,  than  by  the  cordial  and  almost 
universal  approbation  with  which  they  have  been  received  and  sanctioned  by 
the  whole  country. 

"In  the  judgment  of  your  committee,  those  measures  were  intended  to  have 
a  far  more  comprehensive  and  enduring  effect  than  the  mere  adjustment  of  the 
difficulties  arising  out  of  the  recent  acquisition  of  Mexican  territory.  They 


496  LIFE    OP   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

were  designed  to  establish  certain  great  principles,  which  would  not  only  fur 
nish  adequate  remedies  for  existing  evils,  but,  in  all  time  to  come,  avoid  the 
perils  of  a  similar  agitation,  by  withdrawing  the  question  of  slavery  from  the 
halls  of  Congress  and  the  political  arena,  and  committing  it  to  the  arbitrament 
of  those  who  were  immediately  interested  in  and  alone  responsible  for  its  con 
sequences.  With  a  view  of  conforming  their  action  to  the  settled  policy  of 
the  government,  sanctioned  by  the  approving  voice  of  the  American  people, 
your  committee  have  deemed  it  their  duty  to  incorporate  and  perpetuate,  in 
their  territorial  bill,  the  principles  and  spirit  of  those  measures." 

After  presenting  and  reviewing  certain  provisions  of  the  bill,  the  committee 
conclude  as  follows: 

"  From  these  provisions  it  is  apparent  that  the  compromise  measures  of  1850 
affirm  and  rest  upon  the  following  propositions : 

"  '  First. — That  all  questions  pertaining  to  slavery  in  the  territories,  and  in 
the  new  states  to  be  formed  therefrom,  are  to  be  left  to  the  decision  of  the 
people  residing  therein,  by  their  appropriate  representatives  to  be  chosen  by 
them  for  that  purpose. 

u  '  Second. — That  all  cases  involving  title  to  slaves  and  questions  of  per 
sonal  freedom,  are  referred  to  the  adjudication  of  the  local  tribunals,  with  the 
right  of  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

"  '  Third. — That  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  in 
respect  to  fugitives  from  service,  is  to  be  carried  into  faithful  execution  in  all 
the  organized  territories,  the  same  as  in  the  states.  The  substitute  for  the 
bill  which  your  committee  have  prepared,  and  which  is  commended  to  the 
favorable  action  of  the  Senate,  proposes  to  carry  these  propositions  and  prin 
ciples  into  practical  operation,  in  the  precise  language  of  the  Compromise 
Measures  of  1850.'" 

By  reference  to  that  section  of  the  "  Kansas-Nebraska  Act"  as  it  now  stands 
on  the  statute  book,  which  described  and  denned  the  power  of  the  territorial 
Legislature,  it  will  be  seen  that  it  is  "  in  the  precise  language  of  the  Compro 
mise  Measures  of  1850,"  extending  the  legislative  power  of  the  territory  "to 
ah1  rightful  subjects  of  legislation  consistent  with  the  Constitution,"  without 
excepting  African  slavery. 

It  having  been  suggested,  with  some  plausibility,  during  the  discussion  of 
the  bill,  that  the  act  of  Congress  of  March  6,  1820,  prohibiting  slavery  north 
of  the  parallel  of  36°  30'  would  deprive  the  people  of  the  territory  of  the  power 
of  regulating  the  slavery  question  to  suit  themselves  while  they  should  re 
main  in  a  territorial  condition,  and  before  they  should  have  the  requisite  pop 
ulation  to  entitle  them  to  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  state,  an  amendment 
was  prepared  by  the  chairman  of  the  Committee,  and  incorporated  into  the 
bill  to  remove  this  obstacle  to  the  free  exercise  of  the  principle  of  popular 
sovereignty  in  the  territory,  while  it  remained  in  a  territorial  condition,  by 
repealing  the  said  act  of  Congress,  and  declaring  the  true  intent  and  mean 
ing  of  all  the  friends  of  the  bill  in  these  words : 

"  That  the  Constitution  and  all  laws  of  the  United  States  which  are  not 
locally  inapplicable,  shall  have  the  same  force  and  effect  within  the  territory 
as  elsewhere  within  the  United  States,  except  the  eighth  section  of  the  act 
preparatory  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union,  approved  March  6, 
1820,  which  being  inconsistent  with  the  principle  of  non-intervention  by  Con 
gress  with  slavery  in  the  states  and  territories,  as  recognized  by  the  legisla 
tion  of  1850,  commonly  called  the  '  Compromise  Measures,'  is  hereby  declared 
inoperative  and  void — it  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to  leg 
islate,  slavery  into  any  territory  or  state,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave 
the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions 
in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.1' 
To  which  was  added,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Badger,  the  following : 


THE   CINCINNATI   PLATFOEM.  497 

"  Provided,  That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  construed  to  revive  or 
put  in  force  any  law  or  regulation  which  may  have  existed  prior  to  the  act  of 
the  sixth  of  March,  1820,  either  protecting,  establishing,  or  abolishing  slavery." 

Tn  this  form,  and  with  this  distinct  understanding  of  its  "true  intent  and 
meaning,"  the  bill  passed  the  two  houses  of  Congress,  and  became  the  law  of 
the  land  by  the  approval  of  the  President,  May  30,  1854. 

In  1856,  the  Democratic  party,  assembled  in  National  Convention  at  Cin 
cinnati,  declared  by  a  unanimous  vote  of  the  delegates  from  every  State  in  the 
Union,  that 

"The  American  Democracy  recognize  and  adopt  the  principles  contained  in 
the  organic  laws  establishing  the  territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska  as  embod 
ying  the  only  sound  and  safe  solution  of  the  'slavery  question,'  upon  which 
the  great  national  idea  of  the  people  of  this  whole  country  can  repose  in  its 
determined  conservatism  of  the  Union — non-interference  by  Congre  ss  with 
slavery  in  state  and  territory,  or  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

"  That  this  was  the  basis  of  the  Compromises  of  1850,  confirmed  by  both 
the  Democratic  and  "Whig  parties  in  National  Conventions — ratifie  d  by  the 
people  in  the  election  of  1852 — and  rightly  applied  to  the  organization  of  the 
territories  in  1854;  That  by  the  uniform  application  of  this  Democratic  prin 
ciple  to  the  organization  of  territories  and  to  the  admission  of  new  states, 
with  or  without  domestic  slavery  as  they  may  elect,  the  equal  rights  of  all 
will  be  preserved  intact — -the  original  compacts  of  the  Constitution  main 
tained  inviolate — and  the  perpetuity  and  expansion  of  this  Union  insured  to 
its  utmost  capacity  of  embracing  in  peace  and  harmony  any  future  American 
State  that  may  be  constituted  or  annexed  with  a  Eepublican  form  of  govern 
ment." 

In  accepting  the  nomination  of  this  Convention,  Mr.  Buchanan,  in  a  letter 
dated  June  16,  1856,  said : 

"The  agitation  on  the  question  of  domestic  slavery  has  too  long  distracted 
and  divided  the  people  of  this  Union,  and  alienated  their  affections  from  each 
other.  This  agitation  has  assumed  many  forms  since  its  commencement,  but 
it  now  seems  to  be  directed  chiefly  to  the  territories ;  and  judging  from  its 
present  character,  I  think  we  may  safely  anticipate  that  it  is  rapidly  approach 
ing  a  '  finality.'  The  recent  legislation  of  Congress  respecting  domestic  slav 
ery,  derived,  as  it  has  been,  from  the  original  and  pure  fountain  of  legitimate 
political  power,  the  will  of  the  majority,  promises,  ere  long,  to  allay  the  dan 
gerous  excitement.  This  legislation  is  founded  upon  principles  as  ancient  as 
free  government  itself,  and  in  accordance  with  them  has  simply  declared  that 
the  people  of  a  territory,  like  those  of  a  state,  shall  decide  for  themselves 
whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their  limits." 

This  exposition  of  the  history  of  these  measures  shows  conclusively  that 
the  authors  of  the  Compromise  Measures  of  1850,  and  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
Act  of  1854,  as  well  as  the  members  of  the  Continental  Congress  of  1774 
and  the  founders  of  our  system  of  government  subsequent  to  the  Revolution, 
regarded  the  people  of  the  territories  and  colonies  as  political  communities 
which  were  entitled  to  a  free  and  exclusive  power  of  legislation  in  their  pro 
vincial  legislatures,  where  their  representation  could  alone  be  preserved,  in 
all  cases  of  taxation  and  internal  polity.  This  right  pertains  to  the  people 
collectively  as  a  law-abiding  and  peaceful  community,  and  not  to  the  isolated 
individuals  who  may  wander  upon  the  public  domain  in  violation  of  law.  It 
can  only  be  exercised  where  there  are  inhabitants  sufficient  to  constitute  a 
government,  and  capable  of  performing  its  various  functions  and  duties — a 
fact  to  be  ascertained  and  determined  by  Congress.  Whether  the  number 
shall  be  fixed  at  ten,  fifteen,  or  twenty  thousand  inhabitants  does  not  affect 
the  principle. 

The  principle,  under  our  political  system,  is  that  every  distinct  political  com- 


498  LIFE   OP   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

munity,  loyal  to  the  Constitution  and  the  Union,  is  entitled  to  all  the  rights,  priv 
ileges,  and  immunities  of  self-government  in  respect  to  their  local  concerns  and 
internal  polity,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States- 


THE  CONTROVERSY  WITH  BLACK. 

The  appearance  of  this  article  in  Harper's  Magazine  was 
rather  a  surprise  to  the  enemies  of  popular  right.  The  ability 
of  its  argument  and  the  great  force  of  its  reasoning,  carry 
ing  conviction  to  all  candid  minds,  caused  no  little  alarm.  It 
was  deemed  necessary,  on  the  part  of  those  who  professed  doc 
trines  which  General  Cass  so  emphatically  declared  were  "  far 
better  suited  to  the  meridian  of  Constantinople  than  to  that  of 
Washington,"  that  there  should  be  a  reply.  And  with  that 
blindness  and  blundering  which  seems  to  have  marked  every 
step  and  every  movement  of  the  Administration  in  the  warfare 
upon  popular  sovereignty  and  its  champion,  instead  of  commit 
ting  the  office  of  replying  to  a  competent  or  even  well  informed 
person,  the  task  was  intrusted  to  Attorney  General  Black. 
The  country  sustained  a  loss  in  this  selection.  Had  the  task 
of  replying  to  Judge  Douglas  been  assumed  by  a  lawyer  or 
statesman  fitted  by  natural  gifts  or  legal  acquirements  and 
political  experience  to  discuss  principles  of  government  and 
their  bearings  and  application  towards  the  great  point  at  issue, 
the  literature — the  political  and  legal  literature  of  the  country, 
would  have  been  enriched  by  the  productions  on  both  sides, 
and  the  public  would  have  been  aided  by  the  profound  rea 
soning  of  the  disputants  in  arriving  at  a  correct  conclusion. 
But  Attorney  General  Black  discussed  the  question  not  as  a 
lawyer,  not  as  a  statesman,  but  after  the  style  of  a  county 
court  pettifogger  arguing  a  case  of  slander.  Had  the  discus 
sion  of  this  topic  been  conducted  by  Senator  Davis,  of  Missis 
sippi,  instead  of  by  Attorney  General  Black,  the  country  would 
have  had  the  views  of  a  man  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the 
subject,  well  informed  as  a  statesman,  and  one  representing  a 
people  deeply  interested  in  the  matter ;  and  whose  views  would 
have  been  presented  in  a  manner  and  in  language  becoming  a 
dignified  gentleman,  a  scholar,  and  a  constitutional  lawyer. 
Had  it  been  conducted  by  Mr.  Toucey,  who  once  filled  the  office 
of  attorney  general  with  great  distinction,  the  country  would 
have  had  an  argument  not  only  embellished  with  dignity  and 
learning,  but  possibly  as  clear  and  as  convincing  even  as  his 


THE   CINCINNATI   PLATFORM.  499 

beautiful  and  thrilling  defence  of  the  opposite  doctrine  deliv 
ered  in  the  Senate  in  1854  and  in  1856, 

It  is  related  of  an  editor  in  one  of  the  western  cities  who  for 
a  long  time  believed  himself  possessed  of  great  powers  of  ora 
tory,  and  who  upon  all  occasions  and  at  all  times  felt  called 
upon  to  "respond  for  the  press,"  that  on  one  occasion,  while 
standing  in  a  crowd  at  a  depot,  when  a  lady  complained  to  her 
attendant  of  the  almost  suffocating  pressure  they  were  expe 
riencing,  the  editor,  who  had  overheard  only  the  first  syl 
lable  of  the  word  "  pressure,"  immediately  mounted  a  pile  of 
trunks,  and  in  behalf  of  the  "  press"  gave  utterance  to  his  opin 
ions.  Judge  Black  seems  to  labor  under  a  like  impression,  not 
only  as  to  his  capacity  to  discuss  legal  questions,  but  also  as  to 
the  necessity  for  him,  whenever  a  legal  question  is  discussed, 
to  enter  into  the  debate,  no  matter  where  and  by  whom  origin 
ated.  With  a  recklessness  that  amounted  almost  to  absurdity 
he  rushed  into  print  in  reply  to  the  Harper  article  of  Judge 
Douglas.  This  reply  appeared  anonymously  in  the  Wash 
ington  Union,  and  was  soon  laughed  at  by  the  lawyers  of  the 
country.  Subsequently  the  name  of  the  author  was  given,  and 
the  reply,  printed  in  pamphlet  form,  and  franked  by  the  attor 
ney  general,  was  distributed  broad-cast  over  the  country. 
Judge  Douglas  was  then  in  Chicago.  He  had  agreed,  in  reply 
to  an  invitation  of  the  Democrats  of  Ohio,  to  deliver  three 
speeches  in  that  State.  One  of  these  was  at  Wooster.  On  his 
way  to  that  place  a  copy  of  Black's  reply  was  placed  in  his 
hands,  and  in  his  speech  he  discussed  somewhat  severely  some 
of  the  personal  passages  of  the  document ;  and  made  a  remark 
that  the  author  of  that  reply  had,  in  1858,  written  letters  to 
Illinois  urging  reasons  for  the  defeat  of  Douglas  and,  conse 
quently,  the  election  of  Lincoln. 

It  is  only  just,  as  a  matter  of  history,  that  it  should  be  stated 
that  shortly  after  the  publication  of  this  speech  letters  from  a 
cabinet  officer  were  received  by  persons  in  Illinois,  requesting 
the  return  of  the  originals  of  certain  political  letters  written  by 
the  same  cabinet  officer  during  the  great  contest  between  the 
Democracy  and  the  allied  Danites  and  Republicans. 

The  limits  of  this  volume  preclude  the  possibility  of  giving 
herein  Judge  Douglas'  reply  to  Judge  Black's  pamphlet.  It 
was  a  complete  and  thorough  review  and  exposure  of  the  mis 
takes  and  blunders  of  the  attorney  general.  Judge  Black,  late 


500  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

in  October,  rejoined  in  a  pamphlet,  and  Mr.  Douglas  was  pre 
paring  an  elaborate  reply  to  that  when  he  was  stricken  down 
with  a  painful  and  protracted  disease.  For  weeks  he  hoped  to 
be  able  to  resume  the  work,  but  on  November  16th,  seeing  no 
hope  of  being  able  to  complete  it  within  a  reasonable  period, 
he  sent  what  had  been  written  to  the  printer. 

THE   GWIN   CONTROVERSY. 

Sometime  during  the  summer  of  1859,  Senator  Gwin  made 
a  speech  at  Grass  Valley,  California,  in  which  he  told  the  Dem 
ocrats  there,  that  Judge  Douglas  had  been  removed  from  the 
chairmanship  of  the  Committee  on  Territories  because  of  the 
doctrines  of  his  Freeport  speech. 

Copies  of  Mr.  Gwin's  speech,  as  published  in  the  San  Fran 
cisco  National^  were  sent  to  Mr.  Douglas.  He  at  once  replied 
to  that  speech  in  a  letter  to  the  editor  of  that  paper.  Mi- 
Douglas  again  asserted  that  the  views  entertained  by  him  and 
expressed  in  his  Freeport  speech  were  the  same  expressed  by 
him  during  the  entire  period  commencing  with  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850.  He  cited  numerous  authorities  to  show 
that  he  always  was  of  that  opinion,  and  also  that  the  Nebraska 
bill  was  understood  by  others  in  the  same  light.  After  quoting 
from  speeches  of  Secretaries  Cass  and  Toucey  he  made  the 
following  quotation  from  a  speech  delivered  by  Hon.  Mr. 
Cobb — Howell  Cobb,  now  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  at  West 
Chester,  Pennsylvania,  on  the  19th  of  September,  1856: 

Fellow-citizens :  There  never  has  been,  in  all  the  history  of  this  slavery 
matter,  a  more  purely  theoretical  issue  than  the  one  involved  in  the  question 
propounded  to  me  by  my  friend,  and  I  will  show  it  to  you.  I  will  state  to  you 
the  positions  of  the  advocates  of  this  doctrine  of  non-intervention,  on  which  there 
are  different  opinions  held;  but  I  will  show  you  that  it  is  the  purest  abstraction, 
in  a  practical  point  of  view,  that  ever  was  proposed  for  political  discussion.  There 
are  those  who  hold  that  the  Constitution  carries  all  the  institutions  of  this 
country  into  all  the  territories  of  the  Union ;  that  slavery,  being  one  of  the 
institutions  recognized  by  the  Constitution,  goes  with  the  Constitution  into  the 
territories  of  the  United  States ;  and  that  when  the  territorial  government  is 
organized  the  people  have  no  right  to  prohibit  slavery  there,  until  they  come 
to  form  a  state  Constitution.  That  is  what  my  friend  calls  "southern  doctrine." 
There  is  another  class  who  hold  that  the  people  of  the  territories,  in  their  terri 
torial  state,  and  whilst  acting  as  a  territorial  Legislature,  have  a  right  to  decide 
upon  the  question  whether  slavery  shall  exist  there  during  their  territorial 
state ;  and  that  has  been  dubbed  "  squatter  sovereignty."  Now,  you  perceive 
that  there  is  but  one  point  of  difference  between  the  advocates  of  the  two 
doctrines.  Each  holds  that  the  people  have  the  right  to  decide  the  question 
in  the  territory ;  one  holds  that  it  can  be  done  through  the  territorial  Legisla- 


THE   CINCINNATI   PLATFORM.  501 

ture,  aud  whilst  it  has  a  territorial  existence,  the  other  holds  that  it  can  be 
done  only  when  they  come  to  form  a  state  Constitution.  BUT  THOSE  WHO 

HOLD  THAT  THE  TERRITORIAL  LEGISLATURE  CANNOT  PASS  A  LAW  PROHIBITING- 
SLAVERY,  ADMIT  THAT  UNLESS  THE  TERRITORIAL  LEGISLATURE  PASS  LAWS  FOR 
ITS  PROTECTION,  SLAVERY  WILL  NOT  GO  THERE.  THEREFORE,  PRACTICALLY  A 
MAJORITY  OF  THE  PEOPLE  REPRESENTED  IN  THE  TERRITORIAL  LEGISLATURE 
DECIDES  THE  QUESTION.  WHETHER  THEY  DECIDE  IT  BY  PROHIBITING  IT,  AC 
CORDING  TO  THE  ONE  DOCTRINE,  OR  BY  REFUSING  TO  PASS  LAWS  TO  PROTECT  IT, 
AS  CONTENDED  FOR  BY  THE  OTHER  PARTY,  IS  IMMATERIAL.  THE  MAJORITY  OF 
THE  PEOPLE  BY  THE  ACTION  'OF  THE  TERRITORIAL  LEGISLATURE  WILL  DECIDE 

THE  QUESTION;  AND  ALL  MUST  ABIDE  THE  DECISION  WHEN  MADE.  (Great 
applause.)- 

Commenting  upon  these  quotations,  Judge  Douglas  said  : 

Here  we  find  the  doctrines  of  the  Freeport  speech,  including  "non-action" 
and  "  unfriendly  legislation"  as  a  lawful  and  proper  mode  for  the  exclusion  of 
slavery  from  a  territory  clearly  denned  by  Mr.  Cobb,  and  the  election  of  Mr. 
Buchanan  advocated  on  those  identical  doctrines.  Mr.  Cobb  made  similar 
speeches  during  the  presidential  canvass  in  other  sections  of  Pennsylvania,  in 
Maine,  Indiana,  and  most  of  the  northern  states,  and  was  appointed  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  by  Mr.  Buchanan  as  a  mark  of  gratitude  for  the  efficient  ser 
vices  which  had  been  thus  rendered.  Will  any  senator  who  voted  to  remove 
me  from  the  chairmanship  of  the  Territorial  Committee  for  expressing  opinions 
for  which  Mr.  Cobb,  Mr.  Toucey  and  General  Cass  were  rewarded,  pretend 
that  he  did  not  know  that  they  or  either  of  them  had  ever  uttered  such  opin 
ions  when  their  nominations  were  before  the  Senate  ?  I  am  sure  that  no  sen 
ator  will  make  so  humiliating  a  confession.  Why,  then,  were  those  distin 
guished  gentlemen  appointed  by  the  President  and  confirmed  by  the  Senate 
as  cabinet  ministers  if  they  were  not  good  Democrats — sound  on  the  slavery 
question,  and  faithful  exponents  of  the  principles  and  creed  of  the  party  ?  la 
it  not  a  significant  fact  that  the  President  and  the  most  distinguished  and 
honored  of  his  cabinet  should  have  been  solemnly  and  irrevocably  pledged  to 
this  monstrous  heresy  of  "popular  sovereignty,"  for  asserting  which  the  Sen 
ate,  by  Mr.  Gwin's  frank  avowal,  condemned  me  to  the  extent  of  their  power? 

THE   PLATFOKM   UNCHANGED. 

In  reply  to  an  unworthy  taunt  by  Judge  Black  in  one  of  his 
letters,  Mr.  Douglas  thus  expressed  his  veneration  for  the  Cin 
cinnati  platform. 

While  I  could  have  no  hesitation  in  voting  for  the  nominee  of  my  own 
party,  with  whom  I  might  differ  on  certain  points,  in  preference  to  the  candi 
date  of  the  Black  Republican  party,  whose  whole  creed  is  subversive  of  the 
Constitution  and  destructive  of  the  Union,  I  am  under  no  obligation  to  be 
come  a  candidate  upon  a  platform  that  I  would  not  be  willing  to  carry  out  in 
good  faith,  nor  to  accept  the  presidency  on  the  implied  pledge  to  carry  into 
effect  certain  principles,  and  then  administer  the  government  in  direct  conflict 
with  them.  In  other  words,  I  prefer  the  position  of  senator,  or  even  that  of 
a  private  citizen,  where  I  would  be  at  liberty  to  defend  and  maintain  the  well- 
defined  principles  of  the  Democratic  party,  to  accepting  a  presidential  nomi 
nation  upon  a  platform  incompatible  with  the  principle  of  self-government  in 
the  territories,  or  the  reserved  rights  of  the  states,  or  the  perpetuity  of  the 
Union  under  the  Constitution.  In  harmony  with  these  views,  I  said  in  those 
very  speeches  in  Ohio,  to  which  Judge  Black  refers  in  his  appendix,  that  I 


502  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

was  in  favor  of  conducting  the  great  struggle  of  1860  upon  "the  Cincinnati 
platform  WITHOUT  THE  ADDITION  OF  A  WORD  OR  THE  SUBTRACTION  OP  A  LET 
TER."  Yet,  in  the  face  of  all  these  facts,  the  attorney  general  does  not  hesi 
tate  to  represent  me  as  attempting  to  establish  a  new  school  of  politics,  to 
force  new  issues  upon  the  party,  and  prescribe  new  tests  of  Democratic  faith. 
In  conclusion,  I  have  only  to  suggest  to  Judge  Black  and  his  confederates 
in  this  crusade,  whether  it  would  not  be  wiser  for  them,  and  more  consistent 
with  fidelity  to  the  party  which  placed  them  in  power,  to  exert  their  energies 
and  direct  all  their  efforts  to  the  redemption  of  Pennsylvania  from  the  thral 
dom  of  Black  Eepublicanism  than  to  continue  then1  alliance  with  the  Black 
Republicans  in  Illinois,  with  the  vain  hope  of  dividing  and  defeating  the  Dem 
ocratic  partyin  the  only  western  or  northern  state  which  has  never  failed  to 
cast  her  electoral  vote  for  the  regular  nominee  of  the  Democratic  party  at  any 
Presidential  election. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

THE   INVASION    OF   STATES. 

WHEN  Congress  assembled  in  December,  1859,  the  bloody 
history  of  the  Harper's  Ferry  invasion  was  fresh  in  the  minds 
of  the  people.  That  history  was  soon  commented  upon  in  the 
Senate,  it  formed  a  leading  topic  in  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  during  the  protracted  struggle  over  the  election  of 
Speaker.  As  soon  as  both  houses  had  organized,  Mr.  Doug 
las  submitted  a  resolution  having  in  view  some  practical  legis 
lation  to  prevent  a  recurrence  of  such  an  event.  On  that  re 
solution  a  debate  ensued,  in  which  Mr.  Douglas  took  a  con 
spicuous  part.  We  give  his  remarks  entire,  omitting  all  com 
ment,  as  they  are  their  own  best  commentaries. 

On  the  23d  of  January — the  hour  having  arrived  for  the  consideration  of 
the  special  order — the  Senate  proceeded  to  consider  the  following  resolution, 
submitted  by  Mr.  Douglas  on  the  16th  instant: 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  be  instructed  to  report  a 
bill  for  the  protection  of  each  state  and  territory  of  the  Union  against  inva 
sion  by  the  authorities  or  inhabitants  of  any  other  state  or  territory ;  and  for 
the  suppression  and  punishment  of  conspiracies  or  combinations  in  any  state 
or  territory  with  intent  to  invade,  assail,  or  molest  the  government,  inhabi 
tants,  property,  or  institutions  of  any  state  or  territory  of  the  Union. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Mr.  President,  on  the  25th  of  November  last,  the  Governor 
of  Virginia  addressed  an  official  communication  to  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  in  which  he  said : 

"  I  have  information  from  various  quarters,  upon  which  I  rely,  that  a  con 
spiracy  of  formidable  extent,  in  means  and  numbers,  is  formed  in  Ohio,  Penn 
sylvania,  New  York,  aud  other  states,  to  rescue  John  Brown  and  his  asso 
ciates,  prisoners  at  Charleston,  Virginia.  The  information  is  specific  enough 
to  be  reliable.  *  * 

"  Places  in  Maryland,  Ohio,  and  Pennsylvania,  have  been  occupied  as 
depots  and  rendezvous  by  these  desperadoes,  and  unobstructed  by  guards  or 


THE   INVASION    OF   STATES.  503 

otherwise,  to  invade  this  state,  and  we  are  kept  in  continual  apprehension  of 
outrage  from  fire  and  rapine.  I  apprise  you  of  these  facts  in  order  that  you 
may  take  steps  to  preserve  peace  between  the  states." 

To  this  communication,  the  President  of  the  United  States,  on  the  28th  of 
November,  returned  a  reply,  from  which  I  read  the  following  sentence  : 

"  I  am  at  a  loss  to  discover  any  provision  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  the 
United  States  which  would  authorize  me  to  '  take  steps'  for  this  purpose." 
[That  is,  to  preserve  the  peace  between  the  States.] 

This  announcement  produced  a  profound  impression  upon  the  public  mind 
and  especially  in  the  slaveholding  states.  It  was  generally  received  and  re 
garded  as  an  authorative  announcement  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  confers  no  power  upon  the  federal  government  to  protect  each  of  the 
states  of  this  Union  against  invasion  from  the  other  states.  I  shall  not  stop 
to  inquire  whether  the  President  meant  to  declare  that  the  existing  laws  con 
fer  no  authority  upon  him,  or  that  the  Constitution  empowers  Congress  to  en 
act  no  laws  which  would  authorize  the  Federal  interposition  to  protect  the 
states  from  invasion ;  my  object  is  to  raise  the  inquiry,  and  to  ask  the  judg 
ment  of  the  Senate  and  of  the  House  of  Representatives  on  the  question, 
whether  it  is  not  within  the  power  of  Congress,  and  the  duty  of  Congress, 
under  the  Constitution,  to  enact  all  laws  which  may  be  necessary  and  proper 
for  the  protection  of  each  and  every  state  against  invasion,  either  from  foreign 
powers  or  from  any  portion  of  the  United  States. 

The  denial  of  the  existence  of  sach  a  power  in  the  Federal  government  has 
induced  an  inquiry  among  conservative  men — men  loyal  to  the  Constitution 
and  devoted  to  the  Union — as  to  what  means  they  have  of  protection,  if  the 
Federal  government  is  not  authorized  to  protect  them  against  external  violence. 
It  must  be  conceded  that  no  community  is  safe,  no  state  can  enjoy  peace,  or 
prosperity,  or  domestic  tranquility,  without  security  against  external  violence. 
Every  state  and  nation  of  the  world,  outside  of  this  Republic,  is  supposed  to 
maintain  armies  and  navies  for  this  precise  purpose.  It  is  the  only  legitimate 
purpose  for  which  armies  and  navies  are  maintained  in  time  of  peace.  They 
may  be  kep£  up  for  ambitious  purposes,  for  the  purposes  of  aggression  and 
foreign  war ;  but  the  legitimate  purpose  of  a  military  force  in  time  of  peace 
is  to  insure  domestic  tranquility  against  violence  or  aggression  from  without. 
The  states  of  this  Union  would  possess  that  power,  were  it  not  for  the  re 
straints  imposed  upon  them  by  tho  Federal  Constitution.  "When  that  Consti 
tution  was  made,  the  states  surrendered  to  the  Federal  government  the  power 
to  raise  and  support  armies,  and  the  power  to  provide  and  maintain  navies, 
and  not  only  thus  surrendered  the  means  of  protection  from  invasion,  but  con 
sented  to  a  prohibition  upon  themselves  which  declares  that  no  state  shall 
keep  troops  or  vessels  of  war  in  time  of  peace. 

The  question  now  recurs,  whether  the  states  of  this  Union  are  in  that 
helpless  condition,  with  their  hands  tied  by  the  Constitution,  stripped  of  all 
means  of  repelling  assaults  and  maintaining  their  existence,  without  a  guar 
antee  from  the  federal  government,  to  protect  them  against  violence.  If  the 
people  of  this  country  shall  settle  down  into  the  conviction  that  there  is  no 
power  in  the  Federal  government  under  the  Constitution  to  protect  each  and 
every  state  from  violence,  from  aggression,  from  invasion,  they  will  demand 
that  the  cord  be  severed,  and  that  the  weapons  be  restored  to  their  hands 
with  which  they  may  defend  themselves.  This  inquiry  involves  the  question 
of  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union.  The  means  of  defence,  the  means  of  repel 
ling  assaults,  the  means  of  providing  against  invasion,  must  exist  as  a  con 
dition  of  the  safety  of  the  states  and  the  existence  of  the  Union. 

Now,  sir,  I  hope  to  be  able  to  demonstrate  that  there  is  no  wrong  hi  this 
Union  for  which  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  has  not  provided  a 
remedy.  I  believe,  and  I  hope  I  shall  be  able  to  maintain,  that  a  remedy  is 


504  LIFE  OF  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

furnished  for  every  wrong  which  can  be  perpetrated  within  the  Union,  if  the 
Federal  government  performs  its  whole  duty.  I  think  it  is  clear,  on  a  careful 
examination  of  the  Constitution,  that  the  power  is  conferred  upon  Congress, 
first,  to  provide  for  repelling  invasion  from  foreign  countries ;  and,  secondly, 
to  protect  each  state  of  this  Union  against  invasion  from  any  other  state, 
territory,  or  place,  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States.  I  will  first 
turn  your  attention,  sjr,  to  the  power  conferred  upon  Congress  to  protect  the 
United  States — including  states,  territories,  and  the  District  of  Columbia;  in 
cluding  every  inch  of  ground  within  our  limits  and  jurisdiction — against 
foreign  invasion.  In  the  eighth  section  of  the  first  article  of  the  Constitution, 
you  find  that  Congress  has  power — 

"To  raise  and  support  armies;  to  provide  and  maintain  a  navy;  to  make 
rules  for  the  government  and  regulation  of  the  land  and  naval  forces ;  to  pro 
vide  for  calling  forth  the  militia  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Union,  suppress 
insurrections,  and  repel  invasions." 

These  various  clauses  confer  upon  Congress  power  to  use  the  whole  military 
force  of  the  country  for  the  purpose  specified  in  the  Constitution.  They  shall 
provide  for  the  execution  of  the  laws  of  the  Union ;  and,  secondly,  suppress 
insurrections.  The  insurrections  there  referred  to  are  insurrections  against  the 
authority  of  the  United  States — insurrections  against  a  state  authority  being 
provided  for  in  a  subsequent  action,  in  which  the  United  States  can  not  inter 
fere,  except  upon  the  application  of  the  state  authorities.  The  invasion  which 
is  to  be  repelled  by  this  clause  of  the  Constitution  is  an  invasion  of  the  United 
States.  The  language  is,  Congress  shall  have  power  to  "  repel  invasions."  That 
gives  the  authority  to  repel  the  invasion,  no  matter  whether  the  enemy  shall 
land  within  the  limits  of  Virginia,  within  the  District  of  Columbia,  within  the 
Territory  of  New  Mexico,  or  anywhere  else  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States.  The  power  to  protect  every  portion  of  the  country  against  invasion  from 
foreign  nations  having  thus  been  specifically  conferred,  the  framers  of  the  Con 
stitution  then  proceeded  to  make  guarantees  for  the  protection  of  each  of  the 
states  by  Federal  authority.  I  will  read  the  fourth  section  of  the  fourth  article 
of  the  Constitution: 

"  The  United  States  shall  guaranty  to  every  state  in  this  Union  a  Eepubli- 
can  form  of  government,  and  shall  protect  each  of  them  against  invasion ;  and, 
on  application  of  the  Legislature,  or  of  the  Executive,  (when  the  Legislature 
can  not  be  convened),  against  domestic  violence." 

This  clause  contains  three  distinct  guarantees :  first,  the  United  States  shah1 
guaranty  to  every  state  in  this  Union  a  Kepublican  form  of  government ; 
second,  the  United  States  shall  protect  each  of  them  against  invasion ;  third, 
the  United  States  shah1,  on  application  of  the  Legislature,  or  of  the  Executive, 
when  the  Legislature  can  not  be  convened,  protect  them  against  domestic 
violence.  Now,  sir,  I  submit  to  you  whether  it  is  not  clear,  from  the  very 
language  of  the  Constitution,  that  this  clause  was  inserted  for  the  purpose  of 
making  it  the  duty  of  the  Federal  government  to  protect  each  of  the  states 
against  invasion  from  any  other  state,  territory,  or  place  within  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  United  States  ?  For  what  other  purpose  was  the  clause  inserted  ?  The 
power  and  duty  of  protection  as  against  foreign  nations  had  already  been 
provided  for.  This  clause  occurs  among  the  guarantees  from  the  United  States 
to  each  state,  for  the  benefit  of  each  state,  for  the  protection  of  each  state, 
and  necessarily  from  other  states,  inasmuch  as  the  guarantee  had  been  given 
previously  as  against  foreign  nations. 

If  any  further  authority  is  necessary  to  show  that  such  is  the  true  construc 
tion  of  the  Constitution,  it  may  be  found  in  the  forty-third  number  of  the 
Federalist,  written  by  James  Madison.  Mr.  Madison  quotes  the  clause  of  the 
Constitution  which  I  have  read,  giving  these  three  guarantees;  and,  after 
discussing  the  one  guarantying  to  each  state  a  Republican  form  of  govern- 


THE  INVASION   OF  STATES.  505 

ment,  proceeds  to  consider  the  second,  which  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  United 
States  to  protect  each  of  the  states  against  invasion.  Here  is  what  Mr.  Madi- 
Bon  says  upon  that  subject : 

"A  protection  against  invasion  is  due  from  every  society  to  the  parts  compos 
ing  it.  The  latitude  of  the  expression  here  used  seems  to  secure  each  state, 
not  only  against  foreign  hostility,  but  against  ambitious  or  vindictive  enter 
prises  of  its  more  powerful  neighbors.  The  history  both  of  ancient  and  modern 
confederacies  proves  that  the  weaker  members  of  the  Union  ought  not  to  be 
insensible  to  the  policy  of  this  article." 

The  number  of  the  Federalist,  like  all  the  others  of  that  celebrated  work,  was 
written  after  the  Constitution  was  made,  and  before  it  was  ratified  by  the  states, 
and  with  a  view  to  securing  its  ratification ;  hence  the  people  of  the  several 
states,  when  they  ratified  this  instrument,  knew  that  this  clause  was  intended 
to  bear  the  construction  which  I  now  place  upon  it.  It  was  intended  to  make 
it  the  duty  of  every  society  to  protect  each  of  its  parts ;  the  duty  of  the  Fede 
ral  government  to  protect  each  of  the  states ;  and,  he  says,  the  smaller  states 
ought  not  to  be  insensible  to  the  policy  of  this  article  of  the  Constitution. 

Then,  sir,  if  it  be  made  the  imperative  duty  of  the  Federal  government,  by 
the  express  provision  of  the  Constitution,  to  protect  each  of  the  states  against 
invasion  or  violence  from  the  other  states,  or  from  combinations  of  desperadoes 
within  their  limits,  it  necessarily  follows  that  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  to  pass 
all  laws  necessary  and  proper  to  render  that  guarantee  effectual.  While  Con 
gress,  in  the  early  history  of  the  government,  did  provide  legislation,  which  is 
supposed  to  bo  ample  to  protect  the  United  States  against  invasion  from  for 
eign  countries  and  the  Indian  tribes  they  have  failed,  up  to  this  time,  to  make 
any  law  for  the  protection  of  each  of  the  states  against  invasion  from  within 
the  limits  of  the  Union.  I  am  unable  to  account  for  this  omission ;  but  I  pre 
sume  the  reason  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  no  Congress  ever  dreamed  that 
such  legislation  would  ever  become  necessary  for  the  protection  of  one  state 
of  this  Union  against  invasion  and  violence  from  her  sister  states.  Who,  until 
the  Harper's  Ferry  outrage,  ever  conceived  that  American  citizens  could  be  so 
forgetful  of  their  duties  to  themselves,  to  the  country,  to  the  Constitution,  as 
to  plan  an  invasion  of  another  state,  with  the  view  of  inciting  servile  insurrec 
tion,  murder,  treason,  and  every  other  crime  that  disgraces  humanity  ?  While, 
therefore,  no  blame  can  justly  be  attached  to  our  predecessors  in  failing  to 
provide  the  legislation  necessary  to  render  this  guarantee  of  the  Constitution 
effectual ;  still,  since  the  experience  of  last  year,  we  cannot  stand  justified  in 
omitting  longer  to  perform  this  imperative  duty. 

The  question  then  remaining  is,  what  legislation  is  necessary  and  proper  to 
render  this  guarantee  of  the  Constitution  effectual  ?  I  presume  there  will  be 
very  little  difference  of  opinion  that  it  will  be  necessary  to  place  the  whole 
military  power  of  the  government  at  the  disposal  of  the  President,  under 
proper  guards  and  restrictions  against  abuse,  to  repel  and  suppress  invasion 
when  the  hostile  force  shall  be  actually  in  the  field.  But,  sir,  this  is  not  suffi 
cient.  Such  a  legislation  would  not  bo  a  full  compliance  with  this  guarantee 
of  the  Constitution.  The  framers  of  that  instrument  meant  more  when  they 
gave  the  guarantee.  Mark  the  difference  in  language  between  the  provision 
for  protecting  the  United  States  against  invasion  and  that  for  protecting  the 
states.  When  it  provided  for  protecting  the  United  States  it  said  Congreaq 
shall  have  power  to  "  repel  invasion."  When  it  came  to  make  this  guarantee 
to  the  states  it  changed  the  language,  and  said  the  United  States  shall  "pro 
tect"  each  of  the  states  against  invasion.  In  the  one  instance  the  duty  of  the 
government  is  to  repel ,  in  the  other  the  guarantee  is  that  they  will  protect. 
In  other  words,  the  United  States  are  not  permitted  to  wait  until  the  enemy 
shall  be  upon  your  borders ;  until  the  invading  army  shall  have  been  organized 
and  drilled,  and  placed  in  march  with  a  view  to  the  invasion :  but  they  must 

Y 


506  LIFE   OP   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

pass  all  laws  necessary  and  proper  to  insure  protection  and  domestic  tranquil 
ly  to  each  state  and  territory  of  this  Union  against  invasion  or  hostility  from 
other  states  and  territories. 

Then,  sir,  I  hold  that  it  is  not  only  necessary  to  use  the  military  power  when 
the  actual  case  of  invasion  shall  occur,  but  to  authorize  the  judicial  depart 
ment  of  the  government  to  suppress  all  conspiracies  and  combinations  in  the 
several  states  with  intent  to  invade  a  state  or  molest  or  disturb  its  govern 
ment,  its  peace,  its  citizens,  its  property,  or  its  institutions.  You  must  punish 
the  conspiracy,  the  combination  with  intent  to  do  the  act,  and  then  you  will 
suppress  it  in  advance.  There  is  no  principle  more  familiar  to  the  legal  pro 
fession  than  that  wherever  it  is  proper  to  declare  an  act  to  be  a  crime,  it  is 
proper  to  punish  a  conspiracy  or  combination  with  intent  to  perpetrate  the  act. 
Look  upon  your  statute  books,  and  I  presume  you  will  find  an  enactment  to 
punish  the  counterfeiting  of  the  coin  of  the  United  States;  and  then  another 
section  to  punish  a  man  for  having  counterfeit  coin  in  his  possession  with  in 
tent  to  pass  it ;  and  another  section  to  punish  him  for  having  the  molds,  or 
dies,  or  instruments  for  counterfeiting,  with  intent  to  use  them.  This  is  a  fa 
miliar  principle  in  legislative  and  judicial  proceedings.  If  the  act  of  invasion 
is  criminal,  the  conspiracy  to  invade  should  also  be  made  criminal  If  it  be 
unlawful  and  illegal  to  invade  a  state,  and  run  off  fugitive  slaves,  why  not 
make  it  unlawful  to  form  conspiracies  and  combinations  in  the  several  states 
with  intent  to  do  the  act  ?  We  have  been  told  that  a  notorious  man  who 
has  recently  suffered  death  for  his  crimes  upon  the  gallows,  boasted  in  Cleve 
land,  Ohio,  in  a  public  lecture,  a  year  ago,  that  he  had  then  a  body  of  men  em 
ployed  in  running  away  horses  from  the  slaveholders  of  Missouri,  and  pointed 
to  a  livery  stable  in  Cleveland  which  was  full  of  the  stolen  horses  at  that  time. 

I  think  it  is  within  our  competency,  and  consequently  our  duty,  to  pass  a 
law  making  every  conspiracy  or  combination  in  any  state  or  territory  of  this 
Union  to  invade  another  with  intent  to  steal  or  run  away  property  of  any 
kind,  whether  it  be  negroes,  horses,  or  property  of  any  other  description,  into 
another  state,  a  crime,  and  punish  the  conspirators  by  indictment  in  the 
United  States  courts,  and  confinement  in  the  prisons  or  penitentiaries  of  the 
state  or  territory  where  the  conspiracy  may  be  formed  and  quelled.  Sir,  I 
would  carry  these  provisions  of  law  as  far  as  our  constitutional  power  will 
reach.  I  would  make  it  a  crime  to  form  conspiracies  with  a  view  of  in 
vading  states  or  territories  to  control  elections,  whether  they  be  under  the 
garb  of  Emigrant  Aid  Societies  of  New  England,  or  Blue  Lodges  of  Missouri. 
(Applause  in  the  galleries.)  In  other  words,  this  provision  of  the  Constitu 
tion  means  more  than  the  mere  repelling  of  an  invasion  when  the  invading 
army  shall  reach  the  border  of  a  state.  The  language  is,  it  shall  protect  the 
state  against  invasion ;  the  meaning  of  which  is,  to  use  the  language  of  the 
preamble  to  the  Constitution,  to  insure  to  each  state  domestic  tranquility 
against  external  violence.  There  can  be  no  peace,  there  can  be  prosperity, 
there  can  be  no  safety  in  any  community,  unless  it  is  secured  against  violence 
from  abroad.  Why  sir,  it  has  been  a  question  seriously  mooted  in  Europe, 
whether  it  was  not  the  duty  of  England,  a  power  foreign  to  France,  to  pass 
laws  to  punish  conspiracies  m  England  against  the  lives  of  the  princes  of 
Prance.  I  shall  not  argue  the  question  of  comity  between  foreign  states.  I 
predicate  my  argument  upon  the  Constitution  by  which  we  are  governed, 
and  which  we  have  sworn  to  obey,  and  demand  that  the  Constitution  be 
executed  in  good  faith  so  as  to  punish  and  suppress  every  combination,  every 
conspiracy,  either  to  invade  a  state,  or  to  molest  its  inhabitants,  or  to  disturb 
its  property,  or  to  subvert  its  institutions  and  its  government.  I  believe  this 
can  be  effectually  done  by  authorizing  the  United  States  courts  in  the  several 
states  to  take  jurisdiction  of  the  offence,  and  punish  the  violation  of  the  law 
with  appropriate  punishments. 


THE   INVASION    OF   STATES.  507 

It  cannot  be  said  that  the  time  has  not  yet  arrived  for  such  legislation.  It 
cannot  be  said  with  truth  that  the  Harper's  Ferry  case  will  not  be  repeated, 
or  is  not  in  danger  of  repetition.  It  is  only  necessary  to  inquire  into  the 
causes  which  produced  the  Harper's  Perry  outrage,  and  ascertain  whether 
those  causes  are  yet  in  active  operation,  and  then  you  can  determine  whether 
there  is  any  ground  for  apprehension  that  that  invasion  will  be  repeated. 
Sir,  what  were  the  causes  which  produced  the  Harper's  Ferry  outrage? 
Without  stopping  to  adduce  evidence  in  detail,  I  have  no  hesitation  in  ex 
pressing  my  firm  and  deliberate  conviction  that  the  Harper's  Ferry  crime 
was  the  natural,  logical,  inevitable  result  of  the  doctrines  and  teachings  of 
the  Republican  party,  as  explained  and  enforced  in  their  platform,  their  par 
tisan  presses,  their  pamphlets  and  books,  and  especially  in  the  speeches  of 
their  leaders  in  and  out  of  Congress.  (Applause  in  the  galleries.) 

Mr.  Mason.  I  trust  the  order  of  the  Senate  will  be  preserved.  I  am  sure 
it  is  only  necessary  to  suggest  to  the  presiding  officer  the  indispensable  ne 
cessity  of  preserving  the  order  of  the  Senate ;  and  I  give  notice  that,  if  it  i3 
disturbed  again,  I  shall  insist  upon  the  galleries  being  cleared  entirely. 

Mr.  Douglas.     Mr.  President 

The  Vice- President.  The  Senator  will  pause  for  a  single  moment.  It  is 
impossible  for  the  chair  to  preserve  order  without  the  concurrence  of  the  vast 
assembly  in  the  galleries.  He  trusts  that  there  will  be  no  occasion  to  make 
a  reference  to  this  subject  again. 

Mr.  Toombs.  I  hope  that  the  presiding  officer  will  place  officers  in  the 
galleries,  and  put  a  stop  to  this  thing.  It  is  a  very  bad  sign  of  the  times. 
It  is  unbecoming  this  body,  or  the  deliberations  of  any  free  people. 

The  Vice-President.  The  presiding  officer  has  not  the  force  at  his  com 
mand  to  place  officers  in  the  gallery. 

Mr.  Douglas.  If  the  Senate  will  pardon  me  for  a  digression  an  instant,  I 
was  about  to  suggest  to  the  presiding  officer  that  I  thought  it  would  be  nec 
essary  to  place  officers  in  different  parts  of  the  gallery,  with  instructions  that 
if  they  saw  any  person  giving  any  signs  of  approbation  or  disapprobation 
calculated  to  disturb  our  proceedings,  they  should  instantly  put  the  guilty 
person  out  of  the  gallery. 

The  Vice-President.     That  has  been  done. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  was  remarking  that  I  considered  this  outrage  at  Harper's 
Perry  as  the  logical,  natural  consequence  of  the  teachings  and  doctrines  of 
the  Republican  party.  I  am  not  making  this  statement  for  the  purpose  of 
crimination  or  partisan  effect.  I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  members  of 
that  party  to  a  reconsideration  of  the  doctrines  that  they  are  in  the  habit  of 
enforcing,  with  a  view  to  a  fair  judgment  whether  they  do  not  lead  directly 
to  those  consequences,  on  the  part  of  those  deluded  persons  who  think  that 
all  they  say  is  meant,  in  real  earnest,  and  ought  to  be  carried  out.  The  great 
principle  that  underlies  the  Republican  party  is  violent,  irreconcilable,  eternal 
warfare  upon  the  institution  of  American  slavery,  with  the  view  of  its  ulti 
mate  extinction  throughout  the  land  ;  sectional  war  is  to  be  waged  until  the 
cotton  field  of  the  south  shall  be  cultivated  by  free  labor,  or  the  rye  fields  of 
New  York  and  Massachusetts  shall  be  cultivated  by  slave  labor.  In  further 
ance  of  this  article  of  their  creed,  you  find  their  political  organization  not 
only  sectional  in  its  location,  but  one  whose  vitality  consists  in  appeals  to 
northern,  passion,  northern  prejudice,  northern  ambition  against  southern 
states,  southern  institutions,  and  southern  people.  I  have  had  some  expe 
rience  in  fighting  this  element  within  the  last  few  years,  and  I  find  that  the 
source  of  their  power  consists  in  exciting  the  prejudices  and  the  passions  of 
the  northern  section  against  those  of  the  southern  section.  They  not  only 
attempt  to  excite  the  North  against  the  South,  but  they  invite  the  South  to 
assail  and  abuse  and  traduce  the  North.  Southern  abuse,  by  violent  men,  of 


508  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

northern  statesmen  and  northern  people,  is  essential  to  the  triumph  of  the 
Republican  cause.  Hence  the  course  of  argument  which  we  have  to  meet  is 
not  only  repelling  the  appeals  to  northern  passion  and  prejudice,  but  we 
have  to  encounter  their  appeals  to  southern  men  to  assail  us,  in  order  that 
they  may  justify  their  assaults  upon  the  plea  of  self-defence. 

Sir,  when  I  returned  home  in  1858,  for  the  purpose  of  canvassing  Illinois, 
with  a  view  to  a  re-election,  I  had  to  meet  this  issue  of  the  "  irrepressible 
conflict."  It  is  true  that  the  Senator  from  New  York  had  not  then  made  his 
Eochester  speech,  and  did  not  for  four  months  afterwards.  It  is  true  that  he 
had  not  given  the  doctrine  that  precise  name  and  form ;  but  the  principle 
was  in  existence,  and  had  been  proclaimed  by  the  ablest  and  the  most  clear 
headed  men  of  the  party.  I  will  call  your  attention,  sir,  to  a  single  passage 
from  a  speech,  to  show  the  language  in  which  this  doctrine  was  stated  in  Il 
linois  before  it  received  the  name  of  the  "  irrepressible  conflict."  The  Re 
publican  party  assembled  in  state  convention  in  June  1858,  in  Illinois,  and 
unanimously  adopted  Abraham  Lincoln  as  their  candidate  for  United  States 
senator.  Mr.  Lincoln  appeared  before  the  convention,  accepted  the  nomina 
tion,  and  made  a  speech — which  had  been  previously  written  and  agreed  to 
in  caucus  by  most  of  the  leaders  of  the  party.  I  will  read  a  single  extract 
from  that  speech : 

"  In  my  opinion,  it  [the  slavery  agitation]  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall 
have  been  reached  and  passed.  '  A  house  divided  against  itself  can  not 
stand.'  I  believe  this  government  can  not  endure  permanently,  half  slave 
and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall,  but  I  do  expect  it  will 
cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other.  Either 
the  opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it 
where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ul 
timate  extinction ;  or  its  advocates  will  push  forward  till  it  shall  become 
alike  lawful  in  all  the  states — old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as  South." 

Sir,  the  moment  I  landed  upon  the  soil  of  Illinois,  at  a  vast  gathering  of 
many  thousands  of  my  constituents  to  welcome  me  home,  I  read  that  pas 
sage,  and  took  direct  issue  with  the  doctrine  contained  in  it  as  being  revolu 
tionary  and  treasonable,  and  inconsistent  with  the  perpetuity  of  this  republic. 
That  is  not  merely  the  individual  opinion  of  Mr.  Lincoln  ;  nor  is  it  the  individ 
ual  opinion  merely  of  the  senator  from  New  York,  who  four  months  afterward 
asserted  the  same  doctrine  in  different  language ;  but,  so  far  as  I  know,  it  is 
the  general  opinion  of  the  members  of  the  Abolition  or  Republican  party. 
They  tell  the  people  of  the  North  that  unless  they  rally  as  one  man,  under 
a  sectional  banner,  and  make  war  upon  the  South  with  a  view  to  the  ulti 
mate  extinction  of  slavery,  slavery  will  overrun  the  whole  North  and  fasten 
itself  upon  all  the  free  states.  They  then  tell  the  South,  unless  you  rally  as 
one  man,  binding  the  whole  southern  people  into  a  sectional  party,  and  es 
tablish  slavery  all  over  the  free  states,  the  inevitable  consequence  will  be 
that  we  shall  abolish  it  in  the  slaveholding  states.  The  same  doctrine  is 
held  by  the  senator  from  New  York  in  his  Rochester  speech.  He  tells  us 
that  the  states  must  all  become  free,  or  all  become  slave  ;  that  the  South,  in 
other  words,  must  conquer  and  subdue  the  North,  or  the  North  must  triumph 
over  the  South,  and  drive  slavery  from  within  its  limits. 

Mr.  President,  in  order  to  show  that  I  have  not  misinterpreted  the  position 
of  the  senator  from  New  York,  in  notifying  the  South  that,  if  they  wish  to 
maintain  slavery  within  their  limits,  they  must  also  fasten  it  upon  the  north 
ern  states,  I  will  read  an  extract  from  his  Rochester  speech  : 

"  It  is  an  irrepressible  conflict  between  opposing  and  enduring  forces  ; 
and  it  means  that  the  United  States  must  and  will,  sooner  or  later,  become 
either  entirely  a  slaveholding  nation,  or  entirely  a  free-labor  nation.  Either 
the  cotton  and  rice  fields  of  South  Carolina,  and  the  sugar  plantations  of 


THE   INVASION    OF    STATES.  509 

Louisiana,  will  ultimately  be  tilled  by  free  labor,  and  Charleston  and  New 
Orleans  become  marts  for  legitimate  merchandise  alone,  or  else  the  rye  fields 
and  wheat  fields  of  Massachusetts  and  New  York  must  again  be  surrendered 
by  their  farmers  to  slave  culture  and  to  the  production  of  slaves,  and  Boston 
and  New  York  become  once  more  markets  for  trade  in  the  bodies  and  souls 
of  men." 

Thus,  sir,  you  perceive  that  the  theory  of  the  Republican  party  is,  that 
there  is  a  conflict  between  two  different  systems  of  institutions  in  the  re 
spective  classes  of  states — not  a  conflict  in  the  same  states,  but  an  irrepres 
sible  conflict  between  the  free  states  and  the  slave  states  ;  and  they  argue 
that  these  two  systems  of  state  can  not  permanently  exist  in  the  same  Union ; 
that  the  sectional  warfare  must  continue  to  rage  and  increase  with  increas 
ing  fury  until  the  free  states  shall  surrender,  or  the  slave  states  shall  be  sub 
dued.  Hence,  while  they  appeal  to  the  passions  of  our  own  section,  their 
object  is  to  alarm  the  people  of  the  other  section,  and  drive  them  to  mad 
ness,  with  the  hope  that  they  will  invade  our  rights  as  an  excuse  for  some 
of  our  people  to  carry  on  aggressions  upon  their  rights.  I  appeal  to  the 
candor  of  senators,  whether  this  is  not  a  fair  exposition  of  the  tendency  of 
the  doctrines  proclaimed  by  the  Republican  party.  The  creed  of  that  party 
is  founded  upon  the  theory  that,  because  slavery  is  not  desirable  in  our 
states,  it  is  not  desirable  anywhere ;  because  free  labor  is  a  good  thing  with 
us,  it  must  be  the  best  thing  everywhere.  In  other  words,  the  creed  of 
their  party  rests  upon  the  theory  that  there  must  be  uniformity  in  the  do 
mestic  institutions  and  internal  polity  of  the  several  states  of  this  Union. 
There,  in  my  opinion,  is  the  fundamental  error  upon  which  their  whole  sys 
tem  rests.  In  the  Illinois  canvass,  I  asserted,  and  now  repeat,  that  uniform 
ity  in  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  different  states  is  neither  possible  nor 
desirable.  That  is  the  very  issue  upon  which  I  conducted  the  canvass  at 
home,  and  it  is  the  question  which  I  desire  to  put  to  the  Senate.  I  repeat, 
that  uniformity  in  domestic  institutions  of  the  different  states  is  neither  pos 
sible  nor  desirable. 

"Was  such  the  doctrine  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  ?  I  wish  the 
country  to  bear  in  mind  that  when  the  Constitution  was  adopted  the  Union 
consisted  of  thirteen  states,  twelve  of  which  were  slaveholding  states,  and 
one  a  free  state.  Suppose  this  doctrine  of  uniformity  on  the  slavery  ques 
tion  had  prevailed  in  the  Federal  Convention,  do  the  gentlemen  on  that  side 
of  the  house  think  that  freedom  would  have  triumphed  over  slavery?  Do 
they  imagine  that  the  one  free  state  would  have  outvoted  the  twelve  slave- 
holding  states,  and  thus  have  abolished  slavery  throughout  the  land  by  a 
constitutional  provision  ?  On  the  contrary,  if  the  test  had  then  been  made, 
if  this  doctrine  of  uniformity  on  the  slavery  question  had  then  been  pro 
claimed  and  believed  in,  with  the  twelve  slaveholding  states  against  one 
free  state,  would  it  not  have  resulted  in  a  constitutional  provision  fastening 
slavery  irrevocably  upon  every  inch  of  American  soil,  North  as  well  as  South  ? 
Was  it  quite  fair  in  those  days  for  the  friends  of  free  institutions  to  claim 
that  the  Federal  government  must  not  touch  the  question,  but  must  leave 
the  people  of  each  state  to  do  as  they  pleased,  until  under  the  operation  of 
that  principle  they  secured  the  majority,  and  then  wield  that  majority  to 
abolish  slavery  in  the  other  states  of  the  Union  ? 

Sir,  if  uniformity  in  respect  to  domestic  institutions  had  been  deemed  de 
sirable  when  the  Constitution  was  adopted,  there  was  another  mode  by 
which  it  could  have  been  obtained.  The  natural  mode  of  obtaining  uniformity 
was  to  have  blotted  out  the  state  governments,  to  have  abolished  the  state 
Legislatures,  to  have  conferred  upon  Congress  legislative  power  over  the  mu 
nicipal  and  domestic  concerns  of  the  people  of  all  the  states,  as  well  as  upon 
Federal  questions  affecting  the  whole  Union ;  and  if  this  doctrine  of  uniform- 


510  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

ity  had  been  entertained  and  favored  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution, 
such  would  have  been  the  result.  But,  sir,  the  framers  of  that  instrument 
knew  at  that  day,  as  well  as  we  now  know,  that  in  a  country  as  broad  as 
this,  with  so  great  a  variety  of  climate,  of  soil,  and  of  production,  there  must 
necessarily  be  a  corresponding  diversity  of  institutions  and  domestic  regula 
tions,  adapted  to  the  wants  and  necessities  of  each  locality.  The  framers  of 
the  Constitution  knew  that  the  laws  and  institutions  which  were  well 
adapted  to  the  mountains  and  valleys  of  New  England,  were  ill-suited  to  the 
rice  plantations  and  the  cotton-fields  of  the  Carolinas.  They  knew  that  our 
liberties  depended  upon  reserving  the  right  to  the  people  of  each  state  to 
make  their  own  laws  and  establish  their  own  institutions,  and  control  them 
at  pleasure,  without  interference  from  the  Federal  government,  or  from  any 
other  state  or  territory,  or  any  foreign  country.  The  Constitution,  therefore, 
was  based,  and  the  Union  was  founded,  on  the  principle  of  dissimilarity  in 
the  domestic  institutions  and  internal  polity  of  the  several  states.  The 
Union  was  founded  on  the  theory  that  each  state  had  peculiar  interests,  re 
quiring  peculiar  legislation,  and  peculiar  institutions,  different  and  distinct 
from  every  other  state.  The  Union  rests  on  the  theory  that  no  two  states 
would  be  precisely  alike  in  their  domestic  policy  and  institutions. 

Hence,  I  assert  that  this  doctrine  of  uniformity  in  the  domestic  institutions 
of  the  different  states  is  repugnant  to  the  Constitution,  subversive  of  the 
principles  upon  which  the  Union  was  based,  revolutionary  in  its  character, 
and  leading  directly  to  despotism  if  it  is  ever  established.  Uniformity  in 
local  and  domestic  affairs  in  a' country  of  great  extent  is  despotism  always. 
Show  me  centralism  prescribing  uniformity  from  the  capital  to  all  of  its 
provinces  in  their  local  and  domestic  concerns,  and  I  will  show  you  a  des 
potism  as  odious  and  as  insufferable  as  that  of  Austria  or  of  Naples.  Dis 
similarity  is  the  principle  upon  which  the  Union  rests.  It  is  founded  upon 
the  idea  that  each  state  must  necessarily  require  different  regulations ;  that 
no  two  states  have  precisely  the  same  interests,  and  hence  do  not  need  pre 
cisely  the  same  laws ;  and  you  cannot  account  for  this  confederation  of  states 
upon  any  other  principle. 

Then,  sir,  what  becomes  of  this  doctrine  that  slavery  must  be  established 
in  all  the  states  or  prohibited  in  all  the  states  ?  If  we  only  conform  to  the 
principles  upon  which  the  Federal  Union  was  formed,  there  can  be  no  con 
flict.  It  is  only  necessary  to  recognize  the  right  of  the  people  of  every  state 
to  have  just  such  institutions  as  they  please,  without  consulting  your  wishes, 
your  views,  or  your  prejudices,  and  there  can  be  no  conflict. 

And,  sir,  inasmuch  as  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  confers  upon 
Congress  the  power  coupled  with  the  duty  of  protecting  each  state  against 
external  aggression,  and  inasmuch  as  that  includes  the  power  of  suppressing 
and  punishing  conspiracies  in  one  state  against  the  institutions,  property, 
people,  or  government  of  every  other  state,  I  desire  to  carry  out  that  power 
vigorously.  Sir,  give  us  such  a  law  as  the  Constitution  contemplates  and 
authorizes,  and  I  will  show  the  senator  from  New  York  that  there  is  a  con 
stitutional  mode  of  repressing  the  "  irrepressible  conflict."  I  will  open  the 
prison  door  to  allow  conspirators  against  the  peace  of  the  Republic  and  the 
domestic  tranquility  of  our  states  to  select  their  cells  wherein  to  drag  out  a 
miserable  life,  as  a  punishment  for  their  crimes  against  the  peace  of  society. 
Can  any  man  say  to  us  that  although  this  outrage  has  been  perpetrated  at 
Harper's  Ferry,  there  is  no  danger  of  its  recurrence  ?  Sir,  is  not  the  Eepub- 
lican  party  still  embodied,  organized,  confident  of  success,  and  defiant  in  its 
pretensions  ?  Does  it  not  now  hold  and  proclaim  the  same  creed  that  it  did 
before  this  invasion  ?  It  is  true  that  most  of  its  representatatives  here  disa 
vow  the  acts  of  John  Brown  at  Harper's  Ferry.  I  am  glad  that  they  do  so ; 
I  am  rejoiced  that  they  have  gone  thus  far ;  but  I  must  be  permitted  to  say 


THE  INVASION   OF   STATES.  511 

to  them  that  it  is  not  sufficient  that  they  disavow  the  act,  unless  they  also 
repudiate  and  denounce  the  doctrines  and  teachings  which  produced  the  act. 
Those  doctrines  remain  the  same ;  those  teachings  are  being  poured  into  the 
minds  of  men  throughout  the  country  by  means  of  speeches  and  pamphlets 
and  books  and  through  partisan  presses.  The  causes  that  produced  the  Har 
per's  Ferry  invasion  are  now  in  active  operation.  It  is  true  that  the  people 
of  all  the  border  states  are  required  by  the  Constitution  to  have  their  hands 
tied,  without  the  power  of  self-defence,  and  remain  patient  under  a  threat 
ened  invasion  in  the  day  or  in  the  night  ?  Can  you  expect  people  to  be  pa 
tient,  when  they  dare  not  lie  down  to  sleep  at  night  without  first  stationing 
sentinels  around  their  houses  to  see  if  a  band  of  marauders  and  murderers 
are  not  approaching  with  torch  and  pistol  ?  Sir,  it  requires  more  patience 
than  freemen  ever  should  cultivate,  to  submit  to  constant  annoyance,  irrita 
tion  and  apprehension.  If  we  expect  to  preserve  this  Union,  we  must  rem 
edy,  within  the  Union  and  in  obedience  to  the  Constitution,  every  evil  for 
which  disunion  would  furnish  a  remedy.  If  the  Federal  government  fails  to 
act,  either  from  choice  or  from  an  apprehension  of  the  want  of  power,  it  can 
not  be  expected  that  the  states  will  be  content  to  remain  unprotected. 

Then,  sir,  I  see  no  hope  of  peace,  of  fraternity,  of  good  feeling,  between 
the  different  portions  of  the  United  States,  except  by  bringing  to  bear  the 
power  of  the  federal  government  to  the  extent  authorized  by  the  Constitution 
— to  protect  the  people  of  all  the  states  against  any  external  violence  or  ag 
gression.  I  repeat,  that  if  the  theory  of  the  Constitution  shall  be  carried  out 
by  conceding  the  right  of  the  people  of  every  state  to  have  just  such  institu 
tions  as  they  choose,  there  cannot  be  a  conflict,  much  less  an  "  irrepressible 
conflict,"  between  the  free  and  the  slaveholding  states. 

Mr.  President,  the  mode  of  preserving  peace  is  plain.  This  system  of  sec 
tional  warfare  must  cease.  The  Constitution  has  given  the  power,  and  all  we 
ask  of  Congrees  is  to  give  the  means,  and  we,  by  indictments  and  convictions 
in  the  Federal  courts  of  our  several  states,  will  make  such  examples  of  the 
leaders  of  these  conspiracies  as  will1  strike  terror  into  the  hearts  of  the  others, 
and  there  will  be  an  end  of  this  crusade.  Sir,  }-ou  must  check  it  by  crushing 
out  the  conspiracy,  the  combination,  and  then  there  can  be  safety.  Then  we 
shall  be  able  to  restore  that  spirit  of  fraternity  which  inspired  our  revolution 
ary  fathers  upon  every  battle-field ;  which  presided  over  the  deliberations  of 
the  convention  that  framed  the  Constitution,  and  filled  the  hearts  of  the  peo 
ple  who  ratified  it.  Then  we  shall  be  able  to  demonstrate  to  you  that  there 
is  no  evil  unredressed  in  the  Union  for  which  disunion  would  furnish  a  remedy. 
Then,  sir,  let  us  execute  the  Constitution  in  the  spirit  in  which  it  was  made. 
Let  Congress  pass  all  the  laws  necessary  and  proper  to  give  full  and  complete 
effect  to  every  guarantee  of  the  Constitution.  Let  them  authorize  the  pun 
ishment  of  conspiracies  and  combinations  in  any  state  or  territory  against  the 
property,  institutions,  people  or  government  of  any  other  state  or  territory, 
and  there  will  be  no  excuse,  no  desire,  for  disunion.  Then,  sir,  let  us  leave 
the  people  of  every  state  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic 
institutions  in  their  own  way.  Let  each  of  them  retain  slavery  just  as  long 
as  it  pleases,  and  abolish  it  when  it  chooses.  Let  us  act  upon  that  good  old 
golden  principle  which  teaches  all  men  to  mind  their  own  business  and  let 
their  neighbors  alone.  Let  this  be  done  and  this  Union  can  endure  forever 
as  our  fathers  made  it,  composed  of  free  and  slave  states,  just  as  the  people 
of  each  state  may  determine  for  themselves. 

KEPLY    TO    FESSENDEN. 

Mr,  Fessenden  having  replied  at  some  length  to  Mr.  Doug 
las,  he  made  the  following  rejoinder  : 


512  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  President,  I  shall  not  follow  the  senator  from  Maine 
through  his  entire  speech,  but  simply  notice  such  points  as  demand  of  me  some 
reply.  He  does  not  know  why  I  introduced  my  resolution ;  he  cannot  con 
ceive  any  good  motive  for  it ;  he  thinks  there  must  be  some  other  motive 
besides  the  one  that  has  been  avowed.  There  are  some  men,  I  know,  who 
cannot  conceive  that  a  man  can  be  governed  by  a  patriotic  or  proper  motive ; 
but  it  is  not  among  that  class  of  men  that  I  look  for  those  who  are  governed 
by  motives  of  propriety.  I  have  no  impeachment  to  make  of  his  motives.  I 
brought  in  this  resolution  because  I  thought  the  time  had  arrived  when  we 
should  have  a  measure  of  practical  legislation.  I  had  seen  expressions  of 
opinion  against  the  power  from  authorities  so  high  that  I  felt  it  my  duty  to 
bring  it  to  the  attention  of  the  Senate.  I  had  heard  that  the  senator  from 
Virginia  had  intimated  some  doubt  on  the  question  of  power,  as  well  as  of 
policy.  Other  senators  discussed  the  question  here  for  weeks  when  I  was 
confined  to  my  sick  bed.  Was  there  any  thing  unreasonable  in  my  coming 
before  the  Senate  at  this  time,  expressing  my  own  opinion  and  confining  my 
self  to  the  practical  legislation  indicated  in  the  resolution  ?  Nor,  sir,  have  I 
in  my  remarks  gone  outside  of  the  legitimate  argument  pertaining  to  the  ne 
cessity  for  this  legislation.  I  first  showed  that  there  had  been  a  great 
outrage ;  I  showed  what  I  believed  to  be  the  causes  that  had  produced  the 
outrage,  and  that  the  causes  which  produced  it  were  still  in  operation  ;  and 
argued  that,  so  long  as  the  party  to  which  the  gentlemen  belong  remains  em 
bodied  in  full  force,  those  causes  will  still  threaten  the  country.  That 
was  all. 

The  senator  from  Maine  thinks  he  will  vote  for  the  bill  that  will  be  proposed 
to  carry  out  the  objects  referred  to  in  my  resolution.  Sir,  whenever  that  sena 
tor  and  his  associates  on  the  other  side  of  the  chamber  will  record  their  votes 
for  a  bill  of  the  character  described  in  my  resolution  and  speech,  I  shall  con 
gratulate  the  country  upon  the  progress  they  are  making  towards  sound  prin 
ciples.  "Whenever  he  and  his  associates  will  make  it  a  felony  for  two  or  more 
men  to  conspire  to  run  off  fugitive  slaves,  and  punish  the  conspirators  by  con 
finement  in  the  penitentiary,  I  shall  consider  that  wonderful  changes  have 
taken  place  in  this  country.  I  tell  the  senator  that  it  is  the  general  tone  of 
sentiment  in  all  those  sections  of  the  country  where  the  Republican  party 
predominate,  so  far  as  I  know,  not  only  not  to  deem  it  a  crime  to  rescue  a 
fugitive  slave,  but  to  raise  mobs  to  aid  in  the  rescue.  He  talks  about  slander 
ing  the  Republican  party  when  we  intimate  that  they  are  .making  a  warfare 
upon  the  rights  guarantied  by  the  Constitution.  Sir,  where,  in  the  towns  and 
cities  with  Republican  majorities,  can  you  execute  the  fugitive  slave  law  ?  Is 
it  in  the  town  where  the  senator  from  New  York  resides  ?  Do  you  not  re 
member  the  Jerry  rescuers  ?  Is  it  at  Oberlin,  where  the  mob  was  raised  that 
made  the  rescue  last  year  and  produced  the  riot  ? 

Mr.  Fessenden.  I  stated,  and  I  believe  it  was  all  I  said  on  that  matter,  that 
I  was  disposed  to  agree  with  the  senator  in  his  views  as  to  the  question  of 
power ;  and  that,  with  my  views,  I  should  go  very  far — far  enough  to  accom 
plish  the  purpose — to  prevent  the  forming  of  conspiracies  in  one  state  to  attack 
another.  I  did  not  understand  the  senator  to  say  any  thing  about  conspira 
cies  to  run  away  with  slaves ;  nor  did  I  understand  him  to  say  any  thing  about 
the  fugitive  slave  law.  How  I  should  act  in  reference  to  that  matter  I  do 
not  know ;  I  will  meet  it  when  it  comes ;  but  I  ask  the  senator  whether  that 
was  a  part  of  his  first  speech,  or  whether  it  is  a  part  of  his  reply  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.  The  senator  will  find  it  several  times  repeated  in  my  first 
speech,  and  the  question  asked :  Why  not  make  it  a  crime  to  form  conspiracies 
and  combinations  to  run  off  fugitive  slaves,  as  well  as  to  run  off  horses,  or 
any  other  property  ?  I  am  talking  about  conspiracies  which  are  so  common 
in  all  our  northern  states,  to  invade  and  enter,  through  their  agents,  the  slave 


TI1E   INVASION    OF   STATES.  513 

states,  and  seduce  away  slaves  and  run  them  off  by  the  underground  railroad, 
in  order  to  send  them  to  Canada.  It  is  these  conspiracies  to  perpetrate  crime 
with  impunity  that  keep  up  the  irritation.  John  Brown  could  boast,  in  a 
public  house  in  Cleveland,  that  he  and  his  band  had  been  engaged  all  the 
winter  in  stealing  horses  and  running  them  off  from  the  slaveholders  in  Mis 
souri,  and  that  the  livery  stables  were  then  filled  with  stolen  horses,  and  yet 
the  conspiracy  to  do  it  could  not  be  punished. 

Sir,  I  desire  a  law  that  will  make  it  a  crime,  punishable  by  imprisonment  in  the 
penitentiary,  after  conviction  in  the  United  States  court,  to  make  a  conspiracy 
in  one  state,  against  the  people,  property,  government,  or  institutions,  of  an 
other.  Then  we  shall  get  at  the  root  of  the  evil.  I  have  no  doubt  that  gen 
tlemen  on  the  other  side  will  vote  for  a  law  which  pretends  to  comply  with 
the  guarantees  of  the  Constitution,  without  carrying  any  force  or  efficiency  in 
its  provisions.  I  have  heard  men  abuse  the  fugitive  slave  law,  and  express 
their  willingness  to  vote  for  amendments :  but  when  you  come  to  the  amend 
ments  which  they  desired  to  adopt,  you  found  they  were  such  as  would  never 
return  a  fugitive  to  his  master.  They  would  go  for  any  fugitive  slave  law  that 
had  a  hole  in  it  big  enough  to  let  the  negro  drop  through  and  escape ;  but 
none  that  would  comply  with  the  obligations  of  the  Constitution.  So  we  shall 
find  that  side  of  the  chamber  voting  for  a  law  that  will,  in  terms,  disapprove  of 
unlawful  expeditions  against  neighboring  states,  without  being  efficient  in 
affording  protection. 

But  the  senator  says  it  is  a  part  of  the  policy  of  the  northern  Democracy  to 
represent  the  Republicans  as  being  hostile  to  southern  institutions.  Sir,  it  is  a 
part  of  the  policy  of  the  northern  Democracy,  as  well  as  their  duty,  to  speak  the 
truth  on  that  subject.  I  did  not  suppose  that  any  man  would  have  the  auda 
city  to  arraign  a  brother  senator  here  for  representing  the  Republican  party 
as  dealing  in  denunciation  and  insult  of  the  institutions  of  the  South.  Look  to 
your  Philadelphia  platform,  where  you  assert  the  sovereign  power  of  Congress 
over  the  territories  for  their  government,  and  demand  that  it  shall  be  exerted 
against  those  twin  relicts  of  barbarism — polygamy  and  slavery. 

Mr.  Fessenden.  Let  me  suggest  to  the  senator  that  he  is  entirely  changing 
the  issue  between  him  and  roe.  I  did  not  desire  to  say,  and  I  did  not  say, 
that  the  Republicans  of  the  North  were  not  unfriendly  to  the  institution  of 
slavery.  I  admitted  myself  that  I  was ;  I  trust  they  all  are.  It  is  not  in  that 
respect  that  I  accuse  the  Democracy  of  the  North  of  misrepresenting  the  posi 
tion  of  the  Republican  party.  It  was  in  representing  that  they  desired  to  inter 
fere  with  the  institution  in  the  southern  states.  That  is  the  ground — that 
they  were  opposed  to  southern  rights.  That  they  do  not  think  well  of  slavery, 
as  it  exists  in  this  country,  I  do  not  undertake  to  deny.  I  do  not  know  that 
southern  gentlemen  expect  us  to  be  friendly  to  it.  I  apprehend  that  they 
would  not  think  very  well  of  us  if  we  pretended  to  be  friendly  to  it.  If  we 
were  friendly  to  the  institution,  we  should  try  to  adopt,  we  certainly  should 
not  oppose  it ;  but  what  I  charged  upon  the  northern  Democracy  was,  that 
they  misrepresented  our  position.  That  we  were  opposed  to  the  extension 
of  slavery  over  free  territory,  that  we  called  it  a  relic  of  barbarism,  I  admit ; 
but  I  do  deny  that  the  Republican  party,  or  the  Republicans  generally,  have 
ever  exhibited  a  desire  or  made  a  movement  towards  interfering  with  the 
right  of  southern  men  the  states,  or  any  constitutional  rights  that  they  have 
auy  whore.  That  is  the  charge  I  made. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  President,  for  what  purpose  does  the  Republican  party 
appeal  to  northern  passions  and  northern  prejudices  against  southern  institu 
tions  and  the  southern  people,  unless  it  is  to  operate  upon  those  institutions  ? 
They  represent  southern  institutions  as  no  better  than  polygamy  ;  the  slave 
holder  as  no  better  than  the  polygamist ;  and  complain  that  we  should  inti 
mate  that  they  did  not  like  to  associate  with  the  slaveholder  any  better  than 

Y2 


514  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

with  the  polygamist.  I  can  see  a  monstrous  lowering  of  the  flag  in  the  sen 
ator's  speech  and  explanation.  I  would  respect  the  concession,  if  the  fact 
was  acknowledged.  This  thing  of  shrinking  from  position  that  every  north 
ern  man  knows  to  be  true,  and  arraigning  men  for  slander  for  telling  the  truth 
to  them 

Mr.  Fessenden.     I  know  it  not  to  be  true. 

Mr.  Douglas.  You  may  know  it  down  in  Maine,  but  you  do  not  know  it  in 
Illinois.  I  have  always  noted  that  those  men  who  were  so  far  off  from  the 
slave  states  that  they  did  not  know  any  thing  about  them,  are  most  anxious 
for  the  fate  of  the  poor  slave.  Those  men  who  are  so  far  off  that  they  do  not 
know  what  a  negro  is,  are  distressed  to  death  about  the  condition  of  the  poor 
negro.  (Laughter.)  But,  sir,  go  into  the  border  states,  where  we  associate 
across  the  line,  where  the  civilities  of  society  are  constantly  interchanged ; 
where  we  trade  with  each  other,  and  have  social  and  commercial  intercourse, 
and  there  you  will  find  them  standing  by  each  other  like  a  band  of  brothers. 
Take  southern  Illinois,  southern  Indiana,  southern  Ohio,  and  that  part  of 
Pennsylvania  bordering  on  Maryland,  and  there  you  will  find  social  inter 
course,  commercial  intercourse,  good  feeling;  because  those  people  know 
the  condition  of  the  slave  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  line ;  but  just  in  propor 
tion  P.S  you  recede  from  the  slave  states,  just  in  proportion  as  the  people  are 
ignorant  of  the  facts,  just  in  that  proportion  party  leaders  can  impose  on  their 
sympathies  and  honest  prejudices. 

Sir,  I  know  it  is  the  habit  of  the  Republican  party,  as  a  party,  wherever  1 
have  met  them,  to  make  the  warfare  in  such  a  way  as  to  try  to  rally  the 
whole  north  on  sectional  grounds  against  the  south.  I  know  that  is  to  be 
the  issue,  and  it  is  proven  by  the  speech  of  the  senator  from  New  York, 
which  I  quoted  before,  and  that  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  so  far  as  they  are  authority. 
I  happen  to  have  those  speeches  before  me.  The  senator  from  Maine  has 
said  that  neither  of  these  speeches  justified  the  conclusion  that  they  asserted 
that  the  free  states  and  the  slave  states  cannot  coexist  permanently  in  the 
same  Republic.  Let  us  see  whether  they  do  or  not.  Mr.  Lincoln  says : 

"  A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.  I  believe  this  government 
cannot  endure  permanently,  half  slave  and  half  free." 

Then  he  goes  on  to  say  they  must  all  be  one  thing  or  all  the  other,  or  else 
the  Union  cannot  endure.  What  is  the  meaning  of  that  language,  unless  it 
is  that  the  Union  cannot  permanently  exist,  half  slave  and  half  free — that  it 
must  all  become  one  thing  or  all  become  the  other  ?  That  is  the  declaration. 

The  declaration  is  that  the  North  must  combine  as  a  sectional  party,  and 
carry  on  the  agitation  so  fiercely,  up  to  the  very  borders  of  the  slaveholding 
states,  that  the  master  dare  not  sleep  at  night  for  fear  that  the  robbers,  the 
John  Browns,  will  come  and  set  his  house  on  fire,  and  murder  the  women 
and  children,  before  morning.  It  is  to  surround  the  slaveholding  states  by  a 
cordon  of  free  states,  to  use  the  language  of  the  senator;  to  hem  them  in,  in 
order  that  you  may  smother  them  out.  The  senator  avowed,  in  his  speech 
to-day,  their  object  to  be  to  hem  in  the  slave  states,  in  order  that  slavery 
may  die  out.  How  die  out  ?  Confine  it  to  its  present  limits  ;  let  the  ratio 
of  increase  go  on  by  the  laws  of  nature  ;  and  just  in  proportion  as  the  lands 
in  the  slaveholding  states  wear  out,  the  negroes  increase,  and  you  will  soon 
reach  that  point  where  the  soil  will  not  produce  enough  to  feed  the  slaves ; 
then  hem  them  in,  and  let  them  starve  out — let  them  die  out  by  starvation. 
That  is  the  policy — hem  them  in,  and  starve  them  out.  Do  as  the  French 
did  in  Algeria,  when  the  Arabs  took  to  the  caverns — smoke  them  out,  by 
making  fires  at  the  mouths  of  the  caverns,  and  keep  them  burning  until  they 
die.  The  policy  is,  to  keep  up  this  agitation  along  the  line ;  make  slave 
property  insecure  in  the  border  states ;  keep  the  master  constantly  in  appre 
hension  of  assault,  till  he  will  consent  to  abandon  bis  native  country,  leaving 


THE   INVASION    OF   STATES.  515 

his  slaves  behind  him,  or  to  remove  them  further  south.  If  you  can  force 
Kentucky  thus  to  abolish  slavery,  you  make  Tennessee  the  border  state,  and 
begin  the  same  operation  upon  her. 

But,  sir,  let  us  see  whether  the  senator  from  New  York  did  not  proclaim 
the  doctrine  that  free  states  and  slave  states  cannot  permanently  exist  in  tho 
same  Republic.  He  said  : 

"  It  is  an  irrepressible  conflict  between  opposing  and  enduring  forces ;  and 
it  means  that  the  United  States  must  and  will,  sooner  or  later,  become  either 
entirely  a  slaveholding  nation  or  entirely  a  free  labor  nation." 

The  opposing  conflict  is  between  the  States ;  the  Union  can  not  remain  as 
it  now  is,  part  free  and  part  slave.  The  conflict  between  free  states  and 
slave  states  must  go  on  until  there  is  not  a  slave  state  left,  or  until  they  are 
all  slave  states.  That  is  the  declaration  of  the  senator  from  New  York.  The 
senator  from  Maine  tried  to  make  the  senate  believe  that  I  had  misrepre 
sented  the  senator  from  New  York  and  Mr.  Lincoln,  of  Illinois,  in  stating 
that  they  referred  to  a  conflict  between  states.  He  said  that  all  they  meant 
was  that  it  was  a  conflict  between  free  labor  and  slave  labor  in  the  same 
state.  Now,  sir,  let  me  submit  to  that  man's  candor  whether  he  will  insist 
on  that  position.  They  both  say  the  contest  will  go  on  until  the  states  be 
come  all  free  or  all  slave.  Then,  when  is  the  contest  going  to  end?  When 
they  become  all  slave  ?  Will  there  not  be  the  same  conflict  between  free 
labor  and  slave  labor,  after  every  state  has  become  a  slave  state,  that  there 
is  now  ?  If  that  was  the  meaning,  would  the  conflict  between  slave  labor 
and  free  labor  cease  even  when  every  state  had  become  slaveholding?  Have 
not  all  the  slaveholding  states  a  large  number  of  free  laborers  within  their 
limits ;  and  if  there  is  an  irrepressible  conflict  between  free  labor  and  slave 
labor,  will  you  remove  that  conflict  by  making  the  states  all  slave  ?  Yet, 
the  senator  from  New  York  says  they  must  become  all  slave  or  all  free  be 
fore  the  conflict  ceases.  Sir,  that  shows  that  the  senator  from  New  York 
meant  what  I  represented  him  as  meaning.  It  shows  that  a  man  who 
knows  the  meaning  of  words,  and  has  the  heart  to  express  them  as  they 
read,  can  not  fail  to  know  that  that  was  the  meaning  of  those  senators.  The 
boldness  with  which  a  charge  of  misrepresentation  may  be  made  in  this 
body  will  not  give  character  to  it  when  it  is  contradicted  by  the  facts.  I 
dislike  to  have  to  repel  these  charges  of  unfairness  and  misrepresentation ; 
yet  the  senator  began  with  a  series  of  iriuendoes,  with  a  series  of  complaints 
of  misrepresentation,  showing  that  he  was  afraid  to  meet  the  real  issues  of  his 
party,  and  would  make  up  for  that  by  personal  assaults  and  inuendos  against 
the  opposite  party. 

He  goes  back  to  a  speech  of  mine  in  opposition  to  the  Lecompton  Consti 
tution,  in  which  I  said  that  if  you  would  send  that  Constitution  back  and  let 
the  people  of  Kansas  vote  for  or  against  it,  if  they  voted  for  a  free  state  or 
a  slave  state  I  would  go  for  it  without  caring  whether  they  voted  slavery  up 
or  down.  He  thinks  it  is  a  great  charge  against  me  that  I  do  not  care 
whether  the  people  vote  it  up  or  vote  it  down. 

Mr.  Fessenden.  The  senator  is  mistaken  as  to  the  speech  to  which  I  re 
ferred.  It  was  one  of  his  speeches  made  on  his  southern  tour  that  I  referred 
to. 

Mr.  Douglas.  The  idea  is  taken  from  a  speech  in  the  Senate — the  first 
speech  I  made  against  the  Lecompton  Constitution.  It  was  quoted  all  over 
Illinois  by  Mr.  Lincoln  in  the  canvass,  and  I  repeated  the  sentiment  each 
time  it  was  quoted  against  me,  and  repeated  it  in  the  South  as  well  as  the 
North.  I  say  this :  if  the  people  of  Kansas  want  a  slave  state,  it  is  their 
business  and  not  mine  ;  if  they  want  a  free  state,  they  have  a  right  to  have 
it ;  and  hence,  I  do  not  care,  so  far  as  regards  my  action,  whether  they  make 
it  a  free  state  or  not ;  it  is  none  of  my  business.  But  the  senator  says  he 


516  LIFE   OP   STEPHEN  A.    DOUGLAS. 

does  care,  he  has  a  preference  between  freedom  and  slavery.  How  long 
would  this  preference  last  if  he  was  a  sugar  planter  in  Louisiana,  residing 
on  his  estate,  instead  of  living  in  Maine  ?  Sir,  I  hold  the  doctrine  that 
a  wise  statesman  will  adapt  his  laws  to  the  wants,  conditions,  and  interests 
of  the  people  to  be  governed  by  them.  Slavery  may  be  very  essential  in  one 
climate  and  totally  useless  in  another.  If  I  were  a  citizen  of  Louisiana  I 
would  vote  for  retaining  and  maintaining  slavery,  because  I  believe  the  good 
of  that  people  would  require  it.  As  a  citizen  of  Illinois  I  am  utterly  op 
posed  to  it,  because  our  interests  would  not  be  promoted  by  it.  I  should 
like  to  see  the  Abolitionist  who  would  go  and  live  in  a  southern  country 
that  would  not  get  over  his  scruples  very  soon  and  have  a  plantation  as 
quickly  as  he  could  get  the  money  to  buy  it. 

I  have  said  and  repeat  that  this  question  of  slavery  is  one  of  climate,  of 
political  economy,  of  self-interest,  not  a  question  of  legislation.  "Wherever 
the  climate,  the  soil,  the  health  of  the  country  are  such  that  it  can  not  be 
cultivated  by  white  labor,  you  will  have  African  labor,  and  compulsory  labor 
at  that.  Wherever  white  labor  can  be  employed  cheapest  and  most  profit 
ably,  there  African  labor  will  retire  and  white  labor  will  take  its  place. 

You  cannot  force  slavery  by  all  the  acts  of  Congress  you  may  make  on  one 
inch  of  territory  against  the  will  of  the  people,  and  you  cannot  by  any  law 
you  can  make  keep  it  out  from  one  inch  of  American  territory  where  the 
people  want  it.  You  tried  it  in  Illinois.  By  the  ordinance  of  1787  slavery 
was  prohibited,  and  yet  our  people,  believing  that  slavery  would  be  profita 
ble  to  them,  established  hereditary  servitude  in  the  territory  by  territorial 
legislation,  in  defiance  of  your  Federal  ordinance.  "We  maintained  slavery  there 
just  so  long  as  Congress  said  we  should  not  have  it,  and  we  abolished  it  at 
just  the  moment  you  recognized  us  as  a  state,  with  the  right  to  do  as  we 
pleased.  When  we  established  it,  it  was  on  the  supposition  that  it  was  our 
interest  to  do  so.  When  we  abolished  it,  we  did  so  because  experience 
proved  that  it  was  not  our  interest  to  have  it.  I  hold  that  slavery  is  a  ques 
tion  of  political  economy,  to  be  determined  by  climate,  by  soil,  by  production, 
by  self-interest,  and  hence  the  people  to  be  affected  by  it  are  the  most  im 
partial  jury  to  try  the  fact  whether  their  interest  requires  them  to  have  it  or 
not. 

But  the  senator  thinks  it  is  a  great  crime  for  me  to  say  that  I  do  not  care 
whether  they  have  it  or  not.  I  care  just  this  far :  I  want  every  people  to 
have  that  kind  of  government,  that  system  of  laws,  that  class  of  institutions, 
which  will  best  promote  their  welfare,  and  I  want  them  to  decide  for  them 
selves  ;  and  so  that  they  decide  it  to  suit  themselves,  I  am  satisfied,  without 
stopping  to  inquire  or  caring  which  way  they  decide  it.  That  is  what  I 
meant  by  that  declaration,  and  I  am  ready  to  stand  by  it. 

The  senator  has  made  the  discovery — I  suppose  it  is  very  new,  for  he 
would  not  repeat  anything  that  was  old,  after  calling  me  to  account  for  ex 
pressing  an  idea  that  had  been  heard  of  before — that  I  re-opened  the  agitation 
by  bringing  in  the  Nebraska  Bill  in  1854 ;  and  he  tries  to  put  the  responsi 
bility  of  the  crimes  perpetrated  by  his  political  friends,  and  in  violation  of  the 
law,  upon  the  provisions  of  the  law  itself.  We  passed  a  bill  to  allow  the 
people  of  Kansas  to  form  and  regulate  their  own  institutions  to  suit  them 
selves.  No  sooner  had  we  placed  that  law  on  the  statute  book,  than  his  po 
litical  friends  formed  conspiracies  and  combinations  in  the  different  New 
England  states  to  import  a  set  of  desperadoes  into  Kansas  to  control  the 
elections  and  the  institutions  of  that  country  in  fraud  o£the  laws  of  Congress. 

Sir,  I  desire  to  make  the  legislation  broad  enough  to  reach  conspiracies 
and  combinations  of  that  kind ;  and  I  would  also  include  combinations  and 
conspiracies  on  the  other  side.  My  object  is  to  establish  firmly  the  doctrine 
that  each  state  is  to  do  its  own  voting,  establish  its  own  institutions,  make 


THE  INVASION   OF   STATES.  517 

its  own  laws,  without  interference,  directly  or  indirectly,  from  any  outside 
power.  The  gentleman  says  that  is  squatter  sovereignty.  Call  it  squat 
ter  sovereighty,  call  it  popular  sovereignty,  call  it  what  you  please,  it  is  the 
great  principle  of  self-government  on  which  this  Union  was  formed,  and  by 
the  preservation  of  which  alone  it  can  be  maintained.  It  is  the  right  of  the 
people  of  every  state  to  govern  themselves  and  make  their  own  laws,  and  be 
protected  from  outside  violence  or  interference,  directly  or  indirectly.  Sir,  I 
confess  the  object  of  the  legislation  I  contemplate  is  to  put  down  this  outside 
interference;  it  is  to  repress  this  "irrepressible  conflict;"  it  is  to  bring  the 
government  back  to  the  true  principles  of  the  Constitution,  and  let  each 
people  in  this  Union  rest  secure  in  the  enjoyment  of  domestic  tranquility 
without  apprehension  from  neighboring  states.  I  will  not  occupy  further 
time. 

On  the  29th  of  February,  Mr.  Seward  having  addressed  the 
Senate,  Mr.  Douglas  said  : 

MR.  PRESIDENT  :  I  trust  I  shall  be  pardoned  for  a  few  remarks  upon  so 
much  of  the  senator's  speech  as  consists  in  an  assault  on  the  Democratic 
party,  and  especially  with  regard  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill,  of  which  I 
was  the  responsible  author.  It  has  become  fashionable  now-a-days  for  each 
gentleman  making  a  speech  against  the  Democratic  party  to  refer  to  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  Act  as  the  cause  of  all  the  disturbances  that  have  since 
ensued.  They  talk  about  the  repeal  of  a  sacred  compact  that  had  been  un 
disturbed  for  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century,  as  if  those  who  complained 
of  violated  faith  had  been  faithful  to  the  provisions  of  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise.  Sir,  wherein  consisted  the  necessity  for  the  repeal  or  abrogation  of 
that  act,  except  it  was  that  the  majority  in  the  northern  states  refused  to 
carry  out  the  Missouri  Compromise  in  good  faith?  I  stood  willing  to  extend 
it  to  the  Pacific  ocean,  and  abide  by  it  forever,  and  the  entire  South,  without 
one  exception  in  this  body,  was  willing  thus  to  abide  by  it ;  but  the  free- 
soil  element  of  the  northern  states  was  so  strong  as  to  defeat  that  meas 
ure,  and  thus  open  the  slavery  question  anew.  The  men  who  now  complain 
of  the  abrogation  of  that  act  were  the  very  men  who  denounced  it,  and  de 
nounced  all  of  us  who  were  willing  to  abide  by  it  so  long  as  it  stood  upon 
the  statute  book.  Sir,  it  was  the  defeat  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of 
the  enactment  of  the  bill  to  extend  the  Missouri  Compromise  to  the  Pacific 
ocean,  after  it  had  passed  the  Senate  on  my  own  motion,  that  opened  the 
controversy  of  1850,  which  was  terminated  by  the  adoption  of  the  measures 
of  that  year. 

We  carried  those  Compromise  measures  over  the  head  of  the  senator  from 
New  York  and  his  present  associates.  We,  in  those  measures,  established 
a  great  principle,  rebuking  his  doctrine  of  intervention  by  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  territories.  Both  parties,  in 
1852,  pledged  themselves  to  abide  by  that  principle,  and  thus  stood  pledged 
not  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  territories  by  act  of  Congress.  The  Whig  party 
affirmed  that  pledge,  and  so  did  the  Democracy.  In  1854  we  only  carried 
out,  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  the  same  principle  that  had  been  affirmed 
in  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850.  I  repeat  that  their  resistance  to  car 
rying  out  in  good  faith  the  settlement  of  1820,  their  defeat  of  the  bill  for  ex 
tending  it  to  the  Pacific  ocean,  was  the  sole  cause  of  the  agitation  of  1850, 
and  gave  rise  to  the  necessity  of  establishing  the  principle  of  non-interven 
tion  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  territories. 

Hence  I  am  not  willing  to  sit  here  and  allow  the  senator  from  New  York, 
with  all  the  weight  of  authority  he  has  with  the  powerful  party  of  which  he 


518  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

is  the  head,  to  arraign  me  and  the  party  to  which  I  belong  with  the  respon 
sibility  for  that  agitation  which  rests  solely  upon  him  and  his  associates.  Sir, 
the  Democratic  party  was  willing  to  carry  out  the  Compromise  in  good  faith. 
Having  been  defeated  in  that  for  the  want  of  numbers,  and  having  established 
the  principle  of  non-intervention  in  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  in  lieu 
of  it,  the  Democratic  party  from  that  day  to  this  has  been  faithful  to  the  new 
principle  of  adjustment.  "Whatever  agitation  has  grown  out  of  the  question 
since,  has  been  occasioned  by  the  resistance  of  the  party  of  which  that  sena 
tor  is  the  head,  to  this  great  principle  which  has  been  ratified  by  the  Amer 
ican  people  at  two  presidential  elections.  If  he  was  willing  to  acquiesce  in, 
the  solemn  and  repeated  judgment  of  that  American  people  to  which  he  ap 
peals,  there  would  be  no  agitation  in  this  country  now. 

But,  sir,  the  whole  argument  of  that  senator  goes  far  beyond  the  question 
of  slavery,  even  in  the  territories.  His  entire  argument  rests  on  the  assump 
tion  that  the  negro  and  the  white  man  were  equal  by  Divine  law,  and  hence 
that  all  laws  and  constitutions  and  governments  in  violation  of  the  principle 
of  negro  equality  are  in  violation  of  the  law  of  God.  That  is  the  basis  upon 
which  his  speech  rests.  He  quotes  the  Declaration  of  Independence  to  show 
that  the  fathers  of  the  Revolution  understood  that  the  negro  was  placed  on 
an  equality  with  the  white  man,  by  quoting  the  clause,  "  "We  hold  these 
truths  to  be  self-evident,  that  all  men  are  created  equal,  and  are  endowed  by 
their  Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which  are  life,  liberty, 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness."  Sir,  the  doctrine  of  that  senator  and  of  his 
party  is — and  I  have  had  to  meet  it  for  eight  years — that  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  intended  to  recognize  the  negro  and  the  white  man  as  equal 
under  the  Divine  law,  and  hence  that  all  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  which  recognizes  slavery  are  in  violation  of  the  Divine 
law.  In  other  words,  it  is  an  argument  against  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  upon  the  ground  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  law  of  God.  The 
senator  from  New  York  has  long  held  that  doctrine.  The  senator  from  New 
York  has  often  proclaimed  to  the  world  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  was  in  violation  of  the  Divine  law,  and  that  senator  will  not  contra 
dict  the  statement.  I  have  an  extract  from  one  of  his  speeches  now  before 
me,  in  which  that  proposition  is  distinctly  put  forth.  In  a  speech  made  in 
the  State  of  Ohio,  in  1848,  he  said: 

"^Slavery  is  the  sin  of  not  some  of  the  states  only,  but  of  them  all ;  of  not 
one  nationality,  but  of  all  nations.  It  perverted  and  corrupted  the  moral 
sense  of  mankind  deeply  and  universally,  and  this  perversion  became  a  uni 
versal  habit.  Habits  of  thought  become  fixed  principles.  No  American 
state  has  yet  delivered  itself  entirely  from  these  habits.  We,  in  New  York,  are 
guilty  of  slavery  still  by  withholding  the  rights  of  suffrage  from  the  race  we 
have  emancipated.  You,  in  Ohio,  are  guilty  in  the  same  way  by  a  system  of 
black  laws  still  more  aristocratic  and  odious.  It  is  written  in  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States  that  five  slaves  shall  count  equal  to  three  freemen  as 
a  basis  of  representation ;  and  it  is  written  also,  IN  VIOLATION  OF  D1VINE 
LAW,  that  we  shall  surrender  the  fugitive  slave  who  takes  refuge  at  our 
fireside  from  his  relentless  pursuers." 

There  you  find  his  doctrine  clearly  laid  down,  that  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  is  " in  violation  of  the  Divine  law"  and  therefore  is  not  to  be 
obeyed.  You  are  told  that  the  clause  relating  to  fugitives  slaves,  being  in 
violation  of  the  Divine  law,  is  not  binding  on  mankind.  This  has  been  the 
doctrine  of  the  senator  from  New  York  for  years.  I  have  not  heard  it  in  the 
Senate  to-day  for  the  first  time.  I  have  met  in  my  own  State,  for  the  last 
ten  years,  this  same  doctrine,  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  recognized 
the  negro  and  the  white  man  as  equal ;  that  the  negro  and  white  man  are 
equals  by  Divine  law,  and  that  every  provision  of  our  Constitution  and  laws 


THE   INVASION    OF   STATES.  519 

•which  establishes  inequality  between  the  negro  and  the  white  man  is  void, 
because  contrary  to  the  law  of  God. 

The  senator1  from  New  York  says,  in  the  very  speech  from  which  I  have 
quoted,  that  New  York  is  yet  a  slave  state.  "Why  ?  Not  that  she  has  a  slave 
within  her  limits,  but  because  the  Constitution  of  New  York  does  not  allow 
a  negro  to  vote  on  an  equality  with  a  white  man.  For  that  reason,  he  says, 
New  York  is  still  a  slave  state  ;  for  that  reason  every  other  state  that  discrimi 
nates  between  the  negro  and  the  white  man  is  a  slave  state,  leaving  but  a 
very  few  states  in  the  Union  that  are  free  from  his  objection.  Yet,  notwith 
standing  the  senator  is  committed  to  these  doctrines,  notwithstanding  the 
leading  men  of  his  party  are  committed  to  them,  he  argues  that  they  have 
been  accused  of  being  in  favor  of  negro  equality,  and  says  the  tendency  of 
their  doctrine  is  the  equality  of  the  white  man.  He  introduces  the  objection, 
and  fails  to  answer  it.  He  states  the  proposition,  and  dodges  it,  to  leave  the 
inference  that  he  does  not  indorse  it.  Sir,  I  desire  to  see  these  gentlemen 
carry  out  their  principles  to  the  logical  conclusion.  If  they  will  persist  in  the 
declaration  that  the  negro  is  made  the  equal  of  the  white  man,  and  that  any 
inequality  is  in  violation  of  the  Divine  law,  then  let  them  carry  it  out  in  their 
legislation  by  conferring  on  the  negroes  all  the  rights  of  citizenship  the  same 
as  on  white  men.  For  one,  I  never  held  to  any  such  doctrine.  I  hold  that 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  only  referring  to  the  white  man — to  the 
governing  race  of  this  country,  who  were  in  conflict  with  Great  Britain,  and 
had  no  reference  to  the  negro  race  at  all  when  it  declared  that  all  men  were 
created  equal. 

Sir,  if  the  signers  of  that  declaration  had  understood  the  instrument  then  as 
the  senator  from  New  York  now  construes  it,  were  they  not  bound  on  that 
day,  at  that  very  hour,  to  emancipate  all  their  slaves?  If  Mr.  Jefferson  had 
meant  that  his  negro  slaves  were  created  by  the  Almighty  his  equals,  was  he 
not  bound  to  emancipate  the  slaves  on  the  very  day  that  he  signed  his  name 
to  the  Declaration  of  Independence  ?  Yet  no  one  of  the  signers  of  that  decla 
ration  emancipated  his  slaves.  No  one  of  the  states  on  whose  behalf  the 
declaration  was  signed  emancipated  its  slaves  until  after  the  Ee volution  was 
over.  Every  one  of  the  original  colonies,  every  one  of  the  thirteen  original 
states,  sanctioned  and  legalized  slavery  until  after  the  Revolution  was  closed. 
These  facts  show  conclusively  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  never 
intended  to  bear  the  construction  placed  upon  it  by  the  senator  from  New 
York,  and  by  that  enormous  tribe  of  lecturers  that  go  through  the  country 
delivering  lectures  in  country  school  houses  and  basements  of  churches  to 
Abolitionists,  in  order  to  teach  the  children  that  the  Almighty  had  put  his 
seal  of  condemnation  upon  any  inequality  between  the  white  man  and  the 
negro. 

Mr.  President,  I  am  free  to  say  here — what  I  have  said  over  and  over  again 
at  home — that,  in  my  opinion,  this  government  was  made  by  white  men  for 
the  benefit  of  white  men  and  their  posterity  forever,  and  should  be  adminis 
tered  by  white  men,  and  by  none  other  whatsoever. 

Mr.  Doolittle.  I  will  ask  the  honorable  senator,  then,  why  not  give  the  ter 
ritories  to  white  men  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  President,  I  am  in  favor  of  throwing  the  territories  open 
to  all  the  white  men,  and  all  the  negroes,  too,  that  choose  to  go,  and  then 
allow  the  white  man  to  govern  the  territory.  I  would  not  let  one  of  the 
negroes,  free  or  slave,  either  vote  or  hold  office  anywhere,  where  I  had  the 
right,  under  the  Constitution,  to  prevent  it.  I  am  in  favor  of  each  state  and 
each  territory  of  this  Union  taking  care  of  its  own  negroes,  free  or  slave.  If 
they  want  slavery,  let  them  have  it;  if  they  desire  to  prohibit  slavery,  let 
them  do  it ;  it  is  their  business,  not  mine.  "We  in  Illinois  tried  slavery  while 
we  were  a  territory,  and  found  it  was  not  profitable;  and  hence  we  turned 


520  LIFE   OP  STEPHEN   A.   DOUGLAS. 

philanthropists  and  abolished  it,  just  as  our  British  friends  across  the  ocean 
did.  They  established  slavery  in  all  their  colonies,  and  when  they  found  they 
could  not  make  any  more  money  out  of  it,  abolished  it.  I  hold  that  the  ques 
tion  of  slavery  is  one  of  political  economy,  governed  by  the  laws  of  climate, 
soil,  productions,  and  self-interest,  and  not  by  mere  statutory  provision.  I 
repudiate  the  doctrine,  that  because  free  institutions  may  be  best  in  one  cli 
mate,  they  are,  necessarily,  the  best  every  where ;  or  that  because  slavery  may 
be  indispensable  in  one  locality,  therefore  it  is  desirable  every  where.  I  hold 
that  a  wise  statesman  will  always  adapt  his  legislation  to  the  wants,  interests, 
condition  and  necessities  of  the  people  to  be  governed  by  it.  One  people  will 
bear  different  institutions  from  another.  One  climate  demands  different  insti 
tutions  from  another.  I  repeat,  then,  what  I  have  often  had  occasion  to  say, 
that  I  do  not  think  uniformity  is  either  possible  or  desirable.  I  wish  to  see 
no  two  states  precisely  alike  in  their  domestic  institutions  in  this  Union.  Our 
system  rests  on  the  supposition  that  each  state  has  something  in  her  condition 
or  climate,  or  her  circumstances,  requiring  laws  and  institutions  different  from 
every  other  state  of  the  Union.  Hence  I  answer  the  question  of  the  senator 
from  Wisconsin,  that  I  am  willing  that  a  territory  settled  by  white  men  shall 
have  negroes,  free  or  slave,  just  as  the  white  men  shall  determine,  but  not  as 
the  negro  shall  prescribe. 

The  senator  from  New  York  has  coined  a  new  definition  of  the  states  of  the 
Union — labor  states  and  capital  states.  The  capital  states,  I  believe,  are  the 
slaveholding  states ;  the  labor  states  are  the  non-slaveholding  states.  It  has 
taken  that  senator  a  good  many  years  to  coin  that  phrase  and  bring  it  into 
use.  I  have  heard  him  discuss  these  favorite  theories  of  his  for  the  last  ten 
years,  I  think,  and  I  never  heard  of  capital  states  and  labor  states  before.  It 
strikes  me  that  something  has  recently  occurred  up  in  New  England  that 
makes  it  politic  to  get  up  a  question  between  capital  and  labor,  and  take  the 
side  of  the  numbers  against  the  few.  "We  have  seen  some  accounts  in  the 
newspapers  of  combinations  and  strikes  among  the  journeymen  shoemakers 
in  the  towns  there — labor  against  capital.  The  senator  has  a  new  word  ready 
coined  to  suit  their  case,  and  make  the  laborers  believe  that  he  is  on  the  side 
of  the  most  numerous  class  of  voters. 

"What  produced  that  strike  among  the  journeymen  shoemakers  ?  Why  are 
the  mechanics  of  New  England,  the  laborers  and  the  employees,  now  reduced 
to  the  starvation  point?  Simply  because,  by  your  treason,  by  your  sectional 
agitation,  you  have  created  a  strife  between  the  North  and  the  South,  have 
driven  away  your  southern  customers,  and  thus  deprive  the  laborers  of  the 
means  of  support.  This  is  the  fruit  of  your  Republican  dogmas.  It  is  another 
step,  following  John  Brown,  of  the  "  irrepressible  conflict."  Therefore,  we 
now  get  this  new  coinage  of  "  labor  states" — he  is  on  the  side  of  the  shoe 
makers,  (laughter),  and  "capital  states" — he  is  against  those  that  furnish  the 
hides.  (Laughter.)  I  think  those  shoemakers  will  understand  this  business. 
They  know  why  it  is  that  they  do  not  get  so  many  orders  as  they  did  a  few 
months  ago.  It  is  not  confined  to  the  shoemakers ;  it  reaches  every  mechanic's 
shop  and  every  factory.  All  the  large  laboring  establishments  of  the  North 
feel  the  pressure  produced  by  the  doctrine  of  the  "  irrepressible  conflict."  This 
new  coinage  of  words  will  not  save  them  from  the  just  responsibility  that  fol 
lows  the  doctrines  they  have  been  inculcating.  If  they  had  abandoned  the 
doctrine  of  the  "  irrepressible  conflict,"  and  proclaimed  the  true  doctrine  of 
the  Constitution,  that  each  state  is  entirely  free  to  do  just  as  it  pleases,  have 
slavery  as  long  as  it  chooses,  and  abolish  it  when  it  wishes,  there  would  be 
no  conflict ;  the  northern  and  southern  states  would  be  brethren ;  there  would 
be  fraternity  between  us,  and  your  shoemakers  would  not  strike  for  higher 
prices. 

Mr.  Clark.    Will  the  senator  pardon  me  for  interrupting  him  a  moment  ? 


THE   INVASION   OF   STATES.  521 

Mr.  Douglas.    I  will  not  give  way  for  a  speech ;  I  will  for  a  suggestion. 

Mr.  Clark.  1  desire  simply  to  make  one  single  suggestion  in  regard  to  what 
the  senator  from  Illinois  said  in  reference  to  the  condition  of  the  laboring 
classes  in  the  factories.  I  come  from  a  city  where  there  are  three  thousand 
operatives,  and  there  never  was  a  time  when  they  were  more  contented  and 
better  paid  in  the  factories  than  now,  and  when  their  business  was  bettor  than 
at  this  present  time. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I  was  speaking  of  the  scarcity  of  labor  growing  up  in  our 
northern  manufacturing  towns,  as  a  legitimate  and  natural  consequence  of  the 
diminution  of  the  demand  for  the  manufactured  article ;  and  then  the  question 
is,  what  cause  has  reduced  this  demand,  except  the  "  irrepressible  conflict" 
that  has  turned  the  southern  trade  away  from  northern  cities  into  southern 
towns  and  southern  cities  ?  Sir,  the  feeling  among  the  masses  of  the  south 
we  find  typified  in  the  dress  of  the  senator  from  Virginia.  (Mr.  Mason) ;  they 
are  determined  to  wear  the  homespun  of  their  own  productions  rather  than 
trade  with  the  north.  That  is  the  feeling  which  has  produced  this  state  of 
distress  in  our  manufacturing  towns. 

The  senator  from  New  York  has  also  referred  to  the  recent  action  of  the 
people  of  New  Mexico,  in  establishing  a  code  for  the  protection  of  prop 
erty  in  slaves,  and  he  congratulates  the  country  upon  the  final  success  of 
the  advocates  of  free  institutions  in  Kansas.  He  could  not  fail,  however, 
to  say,  in  order  to  preserve  what  he  thought  was  a  striking  antithesis,  that 
popular  sovereignty  in  Kansas  meant  state  sovereignty  in  Missouri.  No, 
sir ;  popular  sovereignty  in  Kansas  was  stricken  down  by  unholy  combination 
in  New  England  to  ship  men  to  Kansas — rowdies  and  vagabonds — with  the 
Bible  in  one  hand  and  Sharpe's  rifle  in  the  other,  to  shoot  down  the  friends 
of  self-government.  Popular  sovereignty  in  Kansas  was  stricken  down  by  the 
combinations  in  the  northern  states  to  carry  elections  under  pretence  of  emi 
grant  aid  societies.  In  retaliation,  Missouri  formed  aid  societies  too ;  and  she, 
following  your  example,  sent  men  into  Kansas  and  then  occurred  the  conflict. 
Now,  you  throw  the  blame  upon  Missouri  merely  because  she  followed  your 
example,  and  attempted  to  resist  its  consequences.  I  condemn  both ;  but  I 
condemn  a  thousand-fold  more  those  who  set  the  example  and  struck  the  first 
blow,  than  those  who  thought  they  would  act  upon  the  principle  of  fighting 
the  devil  with  his  own  weapons,  and  resorted  to  the  same  means  that  you  had 
employed. 

But,  sir,  notwithstanding  the  efforts  of  the  emigrant  aid  societies,  the  peo 
ple  of  Kansas  have  had  their  own  way,  and  the  people  of  New  Mexico  have 
had  their  own  way.  Kansas  had  adopted  a  free  state  ;  New  Mexico  has  es 
tablished  a  slave  territory.  I  am  content  with  both.  If  the  people  of  New 
Mexico  want  slavery,  let  them  have  it,  and  I  never  will  vote  to  repeal  their 
slave  code.  If  Kansas  does  not  want  slavery,  I  will  not  help  anybody  to 
force  it  on  her.  Let  each  do  as  it  pleases.  When  Kansas  comes  to  the  con 
clusion  that  slavery  will  suit  her,  and  promote  her  interest  better  than  the 
prohibition,  let  her  pass  her  own  slave  code ;  I  will  not  pass  it  for  her. 
Whenever  New  Mexico  gets  tired  of  her  code,  she  must  repeal  it  for  herself; 
I  will  not  repeal  it  for  her.  Non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in 
the  territories  is  the  platform  on  which  I  stand. 

But  I  want  to  know  why  will  not  the  senator  from  New  York  carry  out 
his  principles  to  their  logical  conclusion  ?  Why  is  there  not  a  man  in  that 
whole  party,  in  this  body  or  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  bold  enough  to 
redeem  the  pledges  which  that  party  has  made  to  the  country  ?  I  believe 
you  said,  in  your  Philadelphia  platform,  that  Congress  had  sovereign  power 
over  the  territories  for  their  government,  and  that  it  was  the  duty  of  Con 
gress  to  prohibit  in  the  territories  those  twin  relics  of  barbarism,  slavery  and 
polygamy.  Why  do  you  not  carry  out  your  pledges  ?  Why  do  you  not  in- 


522  LIFE    OF   STEPHEN   A.    DOUGLAS. 

troduce  your  bill  ?  The  senator  from  New  York  sajs  they  have  no  new 
measures  to  originate ;  no  new  movement  to  make;  no  new  bill  to  bring 
forward.  Then  what  confidence  shall  the  American  people  repose  in  your 
faith  and  sincerity,  when,  having  the  power  in  one  house,  you  do  not  bring 
forward  a  bill  to  carry  out  your  principles?  The  fact  is,  these  principles  are 
avowed  to  get  votes  in  the  North,  but  not  to  be  carried  into  effect  by  acts  of 
Congress.  You  are  afraid  of  hurting  your  party  if  you  bring  in  your  bill  to 
repeal  the  slave  code  of  New  Mexico ;  afraid  of  driving  off  the  conservative 
men ;  you  think  it  is  wise  to  wait  until  after  the  election.  I  should  be  glad 
to  have  confidence  enough  in  the  sincerity  of  the  other  side  of  the  chamber 
to  suppose  they  had  courage  to  bring  forward  a  law  to  carry  out  their  prin 
ciples  to  their  logical  conclusions.  I  find  nothing  of  that.  They  wish  to 
agitate,  to  excite  the  people  of  the  North  against  the  South  to  get  votes  for 
the  Presidential  election  ;  but  they  shrink  from  carrying  out  their  measures, 
lest  they  might  throw  off  some  conservative  voters  who  do  not  like  the 
Democratic  party. 

But,  sir,  if  the  senator  from  New  York,  in  the  event  that  he  is  made  Presi 
dent,  intends  to  carry  out  his  principles  to  their  logical  conclusion,  let  us  see 
where  they  will  lead  him.  In  the  same  speech  that  I  read  from  a  few  min 
utes  ago,  I  find  the  following.  Addressing  the  people  of  Ohio,  he  said  : 

"You  blush  not  at  these  things,  because  they  have  become  as  familiar  as 
household  words  ;  and  your  pretended  free-soil  allies  claim  peculiar  merit  for 
maintaining  these  miscalled  guarantees  of  slavery,  which  they  find  in  the 
national  compact.  Does  not  all  this  prove  that  the  "Whig  party  have  kept 
up  with  the  spirit  of  the  age ;  that  it  is  as  true  and  faithful  to  human  free 
dom  as  the  inert  conscience  of  the  American  people  will  permit  it  to  be? 
"What  then,  you  say,  can  nothing  be  done  for  freedom,  because  the  public 
conscience  remains  inert?  Yes,  much  can  be  done,  everything  can  be  done. 
Slavery  can  be  limited  to  its  present  bounds." 

That  is  the  first  thing  that  can  be  done — slavery  can  be  limited  to  its 
present  bounds.  "What  else? 

"IT  CAN  BE  AMELIORATED.  IT  CAN  AND  MUST  BE  ABOLISHED,  AND  YOU 
AND  I  CAN  AND  MUST  DO  IT." 

There  you  find  our  two  propositions  ;  first,  slavery  was  to  be  limited  to  the 
states  in  which  it  was  then  situated.  It  did  not  then  exist  in  any  territory. 
Slavery  was  confined  to  the  states.  The  first  proposition  was  that  slavery 
must  be  restricted  and  confined  to  those  states.  The  second  was  that  he,  as 
a  New  Yorker,  and  they,  the  people  of  Ohio,  must  and  would  abolish  it; 
that  is  to  say  abolish  it  in  the  states.  They  could  abolish  it  no  where  else. 
Every  appeal  they  make  to  northern  prejudice  and  passion  is  against  the  in 
stitution  of  slavery  everywhere,  and  they  would  not  be  able  to  retain  their 
Abolition  allies,  the  rank  and  file,  unless  they  held  out  the  hope  that  it  was 
the  mission  of  the  Republican  party,  if  successful,  to  abolish  slavery  in  the 
states  as  well  as  in  the  territories  of  the  Union. 

And  again,  in  the  same  speech,  the  senator  from  New  York  advised  the 
people  to  disregard  constitutional  obligations  in  these  words : 

"  But  we  must  begin  deeper  and  lower  than  the  composition  and  combi 
nation  of  factions  or  parties,  wherein  the  strength  and  security  of  slavery  lie. 
You  answer  that  it  lies  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the 
Constitutions  and  laws  of  slaveholding  states.  Not  at  all.  It  is  in  the  errone 
ous  sentiment  of  the  American  people.  Constitutions  and  laws  can  no  more 
rise  above  the  virtue  of  the  people  than  the  limpid  stream  can  climb  above 
its  native  spring.  Inculcate  the  love  of  freedom  and  the  equal  rights  of  man 
under  the  paternal  roof;  see  to  it  that  they  are  taught  in  the  schools  and  in  the 
churches ;  reform  your  own  code ;  extend  a  cordial  welcome  to  the  fugitive  who 
lays  hte  weary  limbs  at  your  door,  and  defend  him  as  you  would  your  paternal 


THE   INVASION   OF   STATES.  523 

gods ;  correct  your  own  error  that  slavery" is  a  constitutional  guarantee  which 
may  not  be  released,  and  ought  not  to  be  relinquished" 

I  know  they  tell  us  that  alJ  this  is  to  be  done  according  to  the  Constitu 
tion  ;  they  would  not  violate  the  Constitution  except  so  far  as  the  Constitu 
tion  violates  the  law  of  God — that  is  all — and  they  are  to  be  the  judges  of 
how  far  the  Constitution  does  violate  the  law  of  God.  They  say  that  every 
clause  of  the  Constitution  that  recognizes  property  in  slaves  is  in  violation 
of  the  Divine  law,  and  hence  should  not  be  made ;  and  with  that  interpreta 
tion  of  the  Constitution  they  turn  to  the  South  and-  say,  "  We  will  give  you 
all  your  rights  under  the  Constitution  as  we  explain  it !" 

Then  the  senator  devoted  about  a  third  of  his  speech  to  a  very  beautiful 
homily  on  the  glories  of  our  Union.  All  that  he  has  said,  all  that  any  other 
man  has  ever  said,  all  that  the  most  eloquent  tongue  can  ever  utter,  in  be 
half  of  the  blessings  and  the  advantages  of  this  glorious  Union,  I  fully  in 
dorse.  But  still,  sir,  I  am  prepared  to  say  that  the  Union  is  glorious  only 
when  the  Constitution  is  preserved  inviolate.  He  eulogized  the  Union.  I, 
too,  am  for  the  Union ;  I  indorse  the  eulogies ;  but  still,  what  is  the  Union 
worth,  unless  the  Constitution  is  preserved  and  maintained  inviolate  in  all 
its  provisions  ? 

Sir,  I  have  no  faith  in  the  Union  loving  sentiments  of  those  will  not  carry 
out  the  Constitution  in  good  faith,  as  our  fathers  made  it.  Professions  of 
fidelity  to  the  Union  will  be  taken  for  naught,  unless  they  are  accompanied 
by  obedience  to  the  Constitution  upon  which  the  Union  rests.  I  have  a 
right  to  insist  that  the  Constitution  shall  be  maintained  inviolate  in  all  its 
parts,  not  only  that  which  suits  the  temper  of  the  North,  but  every  clause  of 
that  Constitution,  whether  you  like  it  or  dislike  it.  Your  oath  to  support  the 
Constitution  binds  you  to  every  line,  word,  and  syllable  of  the  instrument. 
You  have  no  right  to  say  that  any  given  clause  is  in  violation  of  the  Divine 
law,  and  that,  therefore,  you  will  not  observe  it.  The  man  who  disobeys 
any  one  clause  on  the  pretext  that  it  violates  the  Divine  law,  or  on  any 
other  pretext,  violates  his  oath  of  office. 

But,  sir,  what  a  commentary  is  this  pretext  that  the  Constitution  is  a  vio 
lation  of  the  Divine  law  upon  those  revolutionary  fathers  whose  eulogies  we 
have  heard  here  to-day !  Did  the  framers  of  that  instrument  make  a  Con 
stitution  in  violation  of  the  law  of  God  ?  If  so,  how  do  your  consciences 
allow  you  to  take  the  oath  of  otiice  ?  If  the  senator  from  New  York  still 
holds  to  his  declaration  that  the  clause  in  the  Constitution  relative  to  fugi 
tive  slaves  is  a  violation  of  the  Divine  law,  how  dare  he,  as  an  honest  man, 
take  an  oath  to  support  the  instrument  ?  Did  he  understand  that  he  was 
defying  the  authority  of  Heaven  when  he  took  the  oath  to  support  that  in- 
instrument  ? 

Thus,  we  see,  the  radical  difference  between  the  Republican  party  and  the 
Democratic  party,  is  this :  we  stand  by  the  Constitution  as  our  fathers  made 
it,  and  by  the  decisions  of  the  constituted  authorities  as  they  are  pronounced 
in  obedience  to  the  Constitution.  They  repudiate  the  instrument,  substitute 
their  own  will  for  that  of  the  constituted  authorities,  annul  such  provisions 
as  their  fanaticism,  or  prejudice,  or  policy,  may  declare  to  be  in  violation  of 
God's  law,  and  then  say,  ""We  will  protect  all  your  rights  under  the  Con 
stitution  as  expounded  by  ourselves ;  but  not  as  expounded  by  the  tribunal 
created  for  that  purpose." 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  not  occupy  further  time  in  the  discussion  of  this  ques 
tion  to-night.  I  did  not  intend  to  utter  a  word;  and  I  should  not  have  ut 
tered  a  word  upon  the  subject,  if  the  senator  from  New  York  had  not  made 
a  broad  arraignment  of  the  Democratic  party,  and  especially  of  that  portion 
of  the  action  of  the  party  for  which  I  was  most  immediately  responsible. 
Everybody  knows  that  I  brought  forward  and  helped  to  carry  through  the 


524  LIFE    OF    STEPHEN    A.   DOUGLAS. 

Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  and  that  I  was  active  in  support  of  the  Compromise 
measures  of  1850.  I  have  heard  bad  faith  attached  to  the  Democratic  party 
for  that  act  too  long  to  be  willing  to  remain  silent  and  seem  to  sanction  it 
by  tacit  acquiescence. 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

PUBLIC  DEMONSTRATIONS — COMMITTEE  SERVICE — PUBLIC  LANDS. 

IMMEDIATELY  after  the  election  in  1858,  Judge  Douglas,  for 
the  purpose  of  recruiting  his  health,  le  Chicago  with  his  fam 
ily  for  Washington  by  the  way  of  the  Mississippi  river.  When 
in  St.  Louis  he  was  the  recipient  of  many  public  honors  and 
courtesies.  On  his  way  South,  he  was  met  some  fifty  miles 
north  of  Memphis  by  a  delegation  of  the  citizens  of  that  pros 
perous  city,  who  earnestly  invited  him  to  remain  over  there 
and  partake  of  the  hospitalities  which  it  would  be  their  pride 
as  well  as  pleasure  to  extend  to  him  and  his  family.  Gratified 
beyond  measure  by  this  most  unexpected  greeting  at  the  hands 
of  the  people  of  a  southern  city,  he  accepted  the  cordial  invita 
tion,  and  on  the  day  after  his  arrival,  addressed  a  very  large 
assemblage  of  citizens,  to  whom  he  repeated  the  policy  and 
principles  he  had  advocated  in  the  campaign  that  had  just 
closed  in  Illinois.  He  declared  that  he  could  speak  no  senti 
ments  in  Tennessee  that  he  could  not  speak  as  freely  in  Illinois, 
and  that  any  opinions  that  could  not  be  uttered  in  the  one 
state  as  acceptably  as  in  the  other  were  necessarily  unsound 
and  anti-Democratic. 

He  on  the  next  day  proceeded  down  the  river  to  New 
Orleans,  where  a  grand  reception  awaited  him.  He  reached 
there  at  night,  and  as  the  steamer  neared  the  city  he  was 
greeted  with  a  salute  and  an  illumination.  He  was  escorted 
to  the  hotel  by  the  military  and  a  vast  concourse  of  people.  At 
the  hotel  he  was  welcomed  by  the  mayor  as  the  guest  of  the 
city,  and  also  welcomed  by  the  Hon.  Pierre  Soule  on  the  part 
of  the  citizens.  To  these  addresses,  in  which  he  was  congrat 
ulated  upon  his  recent  victory  in  Illinois,  he  responded  in  a 
suitable  manner. 

On  the  6th  of  December  he  addressed  a  mass  meeting  in 
Odd  Fellows  Hall,  in  a  speech  of  which  we  have  already  given 
some  extracts,  and  in  which  he  repeated  the  famous  doctrines 
so  often  defended  by  him  in  the  Illinois  campaign. 

After  leaving  New  Orleans  he  staid  some  days  at  Havana, 


PUBLIC   DEMONSTRATIONS.  525 

and  then  proceeded  to  New  York  by  steamer.  In  the  mean 
time  the  authorities  of  New  York  in  anticipation  of  his  arrival 
had  unanimously  voted  that,  "  it  is  eminently  due  to  this  es 
teemed  patriot  and  distinguished  senator  that  the  city  of  New 
York,  through  its  constituted  authorities,  should  extend  to  him 
a  cordial  welcome  on  his  arrival,  in  order  to  express  their  ad 
miration  of  the  man,  and  of  the  principles  which  he  has  so  long 
and  so  ably  defended,"  and  therefore  appointed  a  committe  to 
extend  to  Mr.  Douglas  the  hospitalities  of  the  city.  When  he 
reached  New  York  he  was  met  by  committees  of  the  city  coun 
cils  and  escorted  to  the  Everett  House. 

As  soon  as  his  presence  in  New  York  was  ascertained,  a 
meeting  of  citizens  was  held  at  Philadelphia  to  adopt  measures 
for  his  reception  there.  The  city  council  voted  the  use  of  In 
dependence  Hall  for  that  purpose.  On  his  arrival  there  on  the 
4th  of  January,  1859,  he  was  escorted  to  the  venerated  hall, 
and  was  there  formally  welcomed  by  Mayor  Henry  on  behalf 
of  the  authorities,  and  by  "W.  E.  Lehman,  Esq.,  on  behalf  of 
the  people.  The  speeches  on  this  occasion  have  been  pre 
served,  and  in  a  more  comprehensive  biography  of  Mr.  Douglas 
will  form  a  most  interesting  chapter. 

When  leaving  Philadelphia  he  was  accompanied  by  a  large 
delegation  of  his  friends,  who  continued  with  him  until  he  had 
crossed  the  Susquehanna,  when  he  was  met  by  a  committee 
of  citizens  of  Baltimore,  who,  in  behalf  of  the  people  of  that 
city,  welcomed  him  to  the  soil  of  Maryland. 

In  .the  evening  of  January  the  5th,  he  was  greeted  with  a 
serenade  at  the  Gilmore  House,  and  having  been  introduced 
to  the  assemblage  of  persons  in  Monument  Square,  addresssd 
them — returning  his  acknowledgments  for  the  honors  received 
by  him,  and  again  repeating  the  truths  and  arguments  he  had 
been  accustomed  to  express  to  the  people  of  Illinois. 

On  his  arrival  at  Washington  he  was  welcomed  by  thou 
sands  of  the  people  of  that  city — people  who  held  no  office  and 
expected  none,  and  therefore  had  no  dread  of  official  frowns. 
On  reaching  his  own  house  he  made  a  suitable  acknowledg 
ment  for  the  kindness  of  his  old  friends  and  neighbors.  His 
whole  journey  from  Chicago  to  Washington  was  a  succession 
of  popular  manifestations  of  admiration  for  the  man  who  had 
had  the  boldness  to  maintain  the  right,  and  had  the  ability  to 
overcome  and  vanquish  all  the  opposition  arrayed  against  him. 


526  LIFE   OF   STEPHEN    A.    DOUGLAS. 

SERVICES    ON   COMMITTEES   IN   CONGRESS. 

While  Mr.  Douglas  was  at  Havana,  Congress  had  assem 
bled,  and  a  caucus  of  the  Democratic  senators  had  arranged 
the  Senate  committees.  In  this  arrangement  Mr.  GREEN,  of 
Missouri,  was  named  as  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Terri 
tories  in  place  of  Mr.  Douglas.  This,  it  will  be  remembered, 
was  done  while  Mr.  Douglas  was  absent.  No  reason  was  given 
for  it  until  late  in  the  year,  when  Mr.  Gwin  stated  the  reason 
in  his  speech  at  Grass  Valley,  California. 

When  Mr.  Douglas  first  took  his  seat  in  the  House  of  Rep 
resentatives  he  was  assigned  a  place  on  the  Committee  on  Elec- 
tions,  from  which  committee  at  that  session  he  made  the  cele 
brated  report  upon  the  constitutional  powers  of  Congress  to 
regulate  the  manner  and  time  of  holding  elections  in  the  states. 
The  Whig  Congress  of  1841  and  1842  had  passed  a  law  requir 
ing  the  states  to  elect  members  of  Congress  by  districts.  New 
Hampshire,  Georgia  and  some  other  states  had  disregarded 
this  law  and  had  elected  their  representatives  by  general  ticket. 
The  question  whether  the  members  thus  elected  against  the 
provisions  of  the  act  of  the  previous  Congress  was  one  that 
was  considered  of  great  importance.  Mr.  Douglas  made  an 
elaborate  report  upon  the  subject,  being  a  complete  vindication 
of  the  rights  of  the  states,  and  his  report  was  adopted  as  the 
judgment  of  the  house  by  a  most  decided  majority.  At  the 
next  session  he  was  placed  on  the  Judiciary  Committee,  from 
which  he  reported  the  bill  extending  the  admiralty  and  mari 
time  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  district  and  circuit 
courts  to  all  cases  arising  on  the  lakes — thus  giving  to  the  in 
ternal  commerce  and  navigation  the  same  judicial  protection 
that  was  enjoyed  on  the  coast. 

At  the  opening  of  the  next  Congress,  Mr.  Douglas  was  made 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  and  held  that  position  until  he  closed  his  ser 
vices  in  that  body.  When  he  took  his  seat  in  the  Senate  he 
was  made  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories,  and  had 
been  regularly  elected  to  the  position  every  year  from  Decem 
ber  1847,  to  December  1857,  inclusive.  In  December  1858, 
for  the  reasons  given  by  Mr.  Gwin,  he  was  displaced.  It  has 
been  stated  that  he  was  tendered  the  chairmanship  of  another 
committee  but  he  declined  it — if  politically  unfitted  for  the  one 
he  was  equally  so  for  the  other. 


PUBLIC   DEMONSTRATIONS.  627 

During  his  service  in  the  Senate  he  was  for  many  years  a 
member  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  and  also  a 
Regent  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution. 

THE   PUBLIC   LANDS. 

Mr.  Douglas,  as  has  been  shown,  successfully  supported  the 
act  making  the  great  donation  of  public  land  to  Illinois  for 
rail  road  purposes,  and  has  supported  acts  making  like  grants 
to  other  states. 

He  has  always  supported  a  liberal  policy  in  the  administra 
tion  of  the  public  lands — a  policy  looking  always  to  their  occu 
pancy  and  cultivation  by  actual  settlers.  He  has  reported  and 
defended  those  provisions  in  the  Oregon,  Washington  and 
other  territoritorial  acts  granting  lands  to  actual  settlers  on 
condition  of  occupancy,  &c. 

In  1850  he  introduced  into  the  Senate  a  proposition  having 
for  its  effect  a  liberal  donation  to  the  head  of  every  family, 
male  or  female — of  the  public  land  on  the  condition  of  settle 
ment  and  cultivation.  The  principle  involved  in  his  proposi- 
sition  was  something  similar  to  that  embraced  in  the  "  Home 
stead  bill "  so  long  pending  in  Congress,  and  of  which  Mr. 
Douglas  is  an  earnest  supporter. 

He  has  always  as  a  legislator,  as  a  judge,  and  as  a  statesman 
been  a  firm  friend  and  maintainer  of  the  rights  and  interests 
of  the  agriculturists  of  the  country.  Hence  it  is  that  he  has 
always  opposed  the  extension  and  renewal  by  Congress  for 
extraordinary  periods  the  patents  of  inventors  for  agricultural 
implements,  an  opposition  which  has  provoked  a  hostility  that 
is  as  unjust  as  it  is  selfish. 

On  the  18th  of  September,  1851,  he  delivered  by  invitation 
an  address  at  Rochester,  New  York,  before  the  New  York 
Agricultural  Society,  an  address  abounding  in  lofty  sentiment 
and  practical  teaching.  A  copy  of  that  address  is  published 
in  the  annual  reports  of  the  proceedings  of  the  society. 

CONCLUSION. 

In  the  foregoing  pages  have  been  crowded  brief  statements 
of  some  of  the  leading  incidents  of  the  marked  career  of  Mr. 
Douglas.  His  history  is  a  voluminous  one,  and  to  do  full  jus 
tice  to  it  would  require  four  times  the  space  that  has  been 
taken  in  this  work.  At  some  future  time,  some  of  the  events 


528  LIFE  OF  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS. 

herein  only  slightly  touched  upon  may  be  elaborated  to  an 
extent  that  their  importance  will  justify  and  that  truth  will 
require.  The  record,  even  prepared  as  it  is  imperfectly,  will 
not  fail  to  point  out  Mr.  Douglas  as  a  most  remarkable  man. 

At  this  day  he  occupies  the  most  extraordinary  position  of 
being  the  only  man  in  his  own  party  whose  nomination  for  the 
Presidency  is  deemed  equivalent  to  an  election.  Friends  of 
other  statesmen  claim  that  other  men,  if  nominated,  may  be 
elected — a  claim  that  admits  of  strong  and  well  supported  con 
troversy  ;  but  friend  and  foe — all  Democrats,  unite  in  the  opin 
ion  that  Douglas'  nomination  will  place  success  beyond  all 
doubt. 


THE  END. 


Every  Number  of  Harper's  Magazine  contains  from  20  to  50  pages — and 
from  one  third  to  one  half  more  reading — than  any  other  in  the  country. 


HARPER'S  MAGAZINE. 

THE  Publishers  believe  that  the  Ninenteen  Volumes  of  HARPER'S 
MAGAZINE  now  issued  contain  a  larger  amount  of  valuable  and  at 
tractive  reading  than  will  be  found  in  any  other  periodical  of  the 
day.  The  best  Serial  Tales  of  the  foremost  Novelists  of  the  time : 
LEVERS'  "Maurice  Tiernay,"  BULWER  LTTTON'S  "My  Novel," 
DICKENS'S  "Bleak  House"  and  "Little  Dorrit,"  THACKERAY'S 
"Newcomes"  aud  "Virginians,"  have  successively  appeared  in  the 
Magazine  simultaneously  with  their  publication  in  England.  The 
best  Tales  and  Sketches  from  the  Foreign  Magazines  have  been 
carefully  selected,  and  original  contributions  have  been  furnished 
by  CHARLES  EEADE,  WILKIE  COLLINS,  Mrs.  GASKELL,  Miss  Mu- 
LOCH,  and  other  prominent  English  writers. 

The  larger  portion  of  the  Magazine  has,  however,  been  devoted 
to  articles  upon  American  topics,  furnished  by  American  writers. 
Contributions  have  been  welcomed  from  every  section  of  the  coun 
try  ;  and  in  deciding  upon  their  acceptance  the  Editors  have  aimed 
to  be  governed  solely  by  the  intrinsic  merits  of  the  articles,  irrespect 
ive  of  their  authorship.  Care  has  been  taken  that  the  Magazine 
should  never  become  the  organ  of  any  local  clique  in  literature,  or 
of  any  sectional  party  in  politics. 

At  no  period  since  the  commencement  of  the  Magazine  have  its 
literary  and  artistic  resources  been  more  ample  and  varied ;  and  the 
Publishers  refer  to  the  contents  of  the  Periodical  for  the  past  as  the 
best  guarantee  for  its  future  claims  upon  the  patronage  of  the  Amer 
ican  public. 


TERMS.— One  Copy  for  One  Year,  $3  00;  Two  Copies  for  One  Year,  $5  00; 
Three  or  more  Copies  for  One  Year  (each),  $2  00 ;  "  Harper's  Magazine"  and 
41  Harper's  Weekly,"  One  Year,  $4  00.  And  an  Extra  Copy,  gratis,  for  every 
Club  of  TEN  SUBSCRIBERS. 

Clergymen  and  Teachers  supplied  at  Two  DOLLARS  a  year.  The  Semi-An- 
nual  Volumes  bound  in  Cloth,  $2  50  each.  Muslin  Covers,  25  cents  each.  The 
Postage  upon  HARPER'S  MAGAZINE  must  be  paid  at  the  Office  where  it  is  received. 
The  Postage  is  Thirty- six  Cents  a  year. 

HARPER  &  BROTHERS,  Publishers,  Franklin  Square,  New  York. 


HARPER'S  WEEKLY. 

A  JOURNAL  OF  CIVILIZATION. 


jTtr0tHcla00  Illustrated  jFamUg 

PRICE  FIVE  CENTS. 


HARPER'S  WEEKLY  has  now  been  in  existence  three  years.  Dur 
ing  that  period  no  effort  has  been  spared  to  make  it  the  best  possi 
ble  Family  Paper  for  the  American  People,  and  it  is  the  belief  of 
the  Proprietors  that,  in  the  peculiar  field  which  it  occupies,  no  ex 
isting  Periodical  can  compare  with  it. 

Every  Number  of  HARPER'S  WEEKLY  contains  all  the  News  of 
the  week,  Domestic  and  Foreign.  The  completeness  of  this  de 
partment  is,  it  is  believed,  unrivaled  in  any  other  weekly  publica 
tion.  Every  noteworthy  event  is  profusely  and  accurately  illustrated 
at  the  time  of  its  occurrence.  And  while  no  expense  is  spared  to 
procure  Original  Illustrations,  care  is  taken  to  lay  before  the  reader 
every  foreign  picture  which  appears  to  possess  general  interest.  In 
a  word,  the  Subscriber  to  HARPER'S  WEEKLY  may  rely  upon  ob 
taining  a  Pictorial  History  of  the  times  in  which  we  live,  compiled 
and  illustrated  in  the  most  perfect  and  complete  manner  possible. 
It  is  believed  that  the  Illustrated  Biographies  alone  —  of  which  about 
one  hundred  and  fifty  have  already  been  published—  are  worth  far 
more  to  the  reader  than  the  whole  cost  ot  his  subscription. 

The  literary  matter  of  HARPER'S  WEEKLY  is  supplied  by  some 
of  the  ablest  writers  in  the  English  language.  Every  Number  con 
tains  an  installment  of  a  serial  story  by  a  first-class  author  —  BDL- 
WER'S  "  What  will  he  do  ivith  It  ?"  has  appeared  entire  in  its  columns; 
one  or  more  short  Stories,  the  best  that  can  be  purchased  at  home 
or  abroad  ;  the  best  Poetry  of  the  day  ;  instructive  Essays  on  topics 
of  general  interest  ;  Comments  on  the  Events  of  the  time,  in  the 
shape  of  Editorials  and  the  Lounger's  philosophic  and  amusing 
Gossip  ;  searching  but  generous  Literary  Criticisms  ;  a  Chess  Chron 
icle  ;  and  full  and  careful  reports  of  the  Money,  Merchandise,  and 
Produce  Markets. 

In  fixing  at  so  low  a  price  as  Five  Cents  the  price  of  their  paper, 
the  Publishers  were  aware  that  nothing  but  an  enormous  sale  could 
remunerate  them.  They  are  happy  to  say  that  the  receipts  have 
already  realized  their  anticipations,  and  justify  still  further  efforts 
to  make  HARPER'S  WEEKLY  an  indispensable  guest  in  every  home 
throughout  the  country. 

TERMS.—  One  Copy  for  Twenty  Weeks,  $1  00  ;  One  Copy  for  One  Year,  $2  50  ; 
One  Copy  for  Two  Years,  $4  00  ;  Five  Copies  for  One  Year,  $9  00;  Twelve  Cop 
ies  for  One  Year,  $20  00;  Twenty-five  Copies  for  One  Year,  $40  00.  An  Extra 
Copy  will  be  allowed  for  every  Club  of  TWELVE  or  TWENTY-FIVE  STTBSCBIBEBS. 


COMPLETION  OF  QUOTE'S  HISTORY  OF  GREECE, 


A   HISTORY   OF   GREECE, 

FROM  THE  EARLIEST  PERIOD  TO  THE  CLOSE  OF  THE  GENERA 
TION  CONTEMPORARY  WITH  ALEXANDER  THE  GREAT- 

BY  GEORGE  GROTE,  ESQ. 

Vol.  XII.  contains  Portrait,  Maps,  and  Index.     Complete  in  12  vols.  12mo, 
Muslin,  $9  00  ;  Sheep,  $12  00  ;  Half  Calf,  $15  00. 

It  is  not  often  that  a  work  of  such  magnitude  is  undertaken  ;  more  seldom  still 
is  such  a  work  so  perseveringly  carried  on,  and  so  soon  and  yet  so  worthily  ac 
complished.  Mr.  Grote  has  illustrated  and  invested  with  an  entirely  new  signifi 
cance  a  portion  of  the  past  history  of  humanity,  which  he,  perhaps,  thinks  the  most 
splendid  that  has  been,  and  which  all  allow  to  have  been  very  splendid.  He  has  made 
great  Greeks  live  again  before  us,  and  has  enabled  us  to  realize  Greek  modes  of  think 
ing.  He  has  added  a  great  historical  work  to  the  language,  taking  its  place  with 
other  great  histories,  and  yet  not  like  any  of  them  in  the  special  combination  of 
merits  which  it  exhibits  :  scholarship  and  learning  such  as  we  have  been  ac 
customed  to  demand  only  in  Germans  ;  an  art  of  grouping  and  narration  different 
from  that  of  Hume,  different  from  that  of  Gibbon,  and  yet  producing  the  effect  of 
sustained  charm  and  pleasure  ;  a  peculiarly  keen  interest  in  events  of  the  political 
order,  and  a  wide  knowledge  of  the  business  of  politics  ;  and,  finally,  harmonizing 
all,  a  spirit  of  sober  philosophical  generalization  always  tending  to  view  facts 
collectively  in  their  speculative  bearing  as  well  as  to  record  them  individually. 
It  is  at  once  an  ample  and  detailed  narrative  of  the  history  of  Greece,  and  a  lucid 
philosophy  of  Grecian  history. —  London  Athenaeum,  March  8,  1856. 

Mr.  Grote  will  be  emphatically  the  historian  of  the  people  of  Greece. — Dublin 
University  Magazine. 

The  acute  intelligence,  the  discipline,  faculty  of  intellect,  and  the  excellent  eru 
dition  every  one  would  look  for  from  Mr.  Grote  ;  but  they  will  here  also  find  the 
element  which  harmonizes  these,  and  without  which,  on  such  a  theme,  an  orderly 
and  solid  work  could  not  have  been  written. — Examiner. 

A  work  second  to  that  of  Gibbon  alone  in  English  historical  literature.  Mr. 
Grote  gives  the  philosophy  as  well  as  the  facts  of  history,  and  it  would  be  difficult 
to  find  an  author  combining  in  the  same  degree  the  accurate  learning  of  the  schol 
ar  with  the  experience  of  a  practical  statesman.  The  completion  of  this  great 
work  may  well  be  hailed  with  some  degree  of  national  pride  and  satisfaction. — 
Literary  Gazette,  March  8,  1856. 

The  better  acquainted  any  one  is  with  Grecian  history,  and  with  the  manner  in 
which  that  history  has  heretofore  been  written,  the  higher  will  be  his  estimation 
of  this  work.  Mr.  Grote's  familiarity  both  with  the  great  highways  and  the  ob 
scurest  by-paths  of  Grecian  literature  and  antiquity  has  seldom  been  equaled,  and 
not  often  approached,  in  unlearned  England  ;  while  those  Germans  who  have  ri 
valed  it  have  seldom  possessed  the  quality  which  eminently  characterizes  Mr. 
Grote,  of  keeping  historical  imagination  severely  under  the  restraints  of  evidence. 
The  great  charm  of  Mr.  Grote's  history  has  been  throughout  the  cordial  admira' 
tion  he  feels  for  the  people  whose  acts  and  fortunes  he  has  to  relate.  *  *  We  bid 
Mr.  Grote  farewell ;  heartily  congratulating  him  on  the  conclusion  of  a  work  which 
is  a  monument  of  English  learning,  of  English  clear-sightedness,  and  of  English 
love  of  freedom  and  the  characters  it  produces. — Spectator. 

Endeavor  to  become  acquainted  with  Mr.  Grote,  who  is  engaged  on  a  Greek 
History.  I  expect  a  great  deal  from  this  production. — NIEBUHR,  the  Historian, 
to  Professor  LIEBER. 

The  author  has  now  incontestably  won  for  himself  the  title,  not  merely  of  a 
historian,  but  of  the  historian  of  Greece. — Quarterly  Review. 

Mr.  Grote  is,  beyond  all  question,  the  historian  of  Greece,  unrivaled,  so  far  as 
we  know,  in  the  erudition  and  genius  with  which  he  has  revived  the  picture  of  a 
distant  past,  and  brought  home  every  part  and  feature  of  its  history  to  our  intel 
lects  and  our  hearts. — London  Times. 

For  becoming  dignity  of  style,  unforced  adaptation  of  results  to  principles,  care 
ful  verification  of  theory  by  fact,  and  impregnation  of  fact  by  theory — for  extensive 
and  well-weighed  learning,  employed  with  intelligence  and  taste,  we  have  seen  no 
historical  work  of  modern  times  which  we  would  place  above  Mr.  Grote's  histo 
ry. — Morning  Chronicle. 

HARPER  &  BROTHERS,  PUBLISHERS,  FRANKLIN  SQUARE,  N.  Y. 


CURTIS'S    HISTORY 

OF  THE 

CONSTITUTION. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  ORIGIN,  FORMATION,  AND  ADOP 
TION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  UNITED 
STATES.  By  GEORGE  TICKNOR  CURTIS.  Complete  in  2  vols. 
8vo,  Muslin,  $4  00  ;  Law  Sheep,  $5  00  ;  Half  Calf,  $6  00. 

A  book  so  thorough  as  this  in  the  comprehension  of  its  subject,  so  impartial 
in  the  summing  up  of  its  judgments,  so  well  considered  in  its  method,  and  so 
truthful  in  its  matter,  may  safely  challenge  the  most  exhaustive  criticism.  The 
Constitutional  History  of  our  country  has  not  before  been  made  the  subject  of  a 
special  treatise.  We  may  congratulate  ourselves  that  an  author  has  been  found 
so  capable  to  do  full  j  ustice  to  it ;  for  that  the  work  will  take  its  rank  among  the 
received  text-books  of  our  political  literature  will  be  questioned  by  no  one  who 
has  given  it  a  careful  perusal. — National  Intelligencer. 

We  know  of  no  person  who  is  better  qualified  (now  that  the  late  Daniel  Web 
ster  is  no  more),  to  undertake  this  important  history.— Boston  Journal. 

It  will  take  its  place  among  the  classics  of  American  literature.— Boston  Cour 
ier. 

The  author  has  given  years  to  the  preliminary  studies,  and  nothing  has  es 
caped  him  in  the  patient  and  conscientious  researches  to  which  he  has  devoted 
so  ample  a  portion  of  time.  Indeed,  the  work  has  been  so  thoroughly  performed 
that  it  will  never  need  to  be  done  over  again ;  for  the  sources  have  been  exhaust 
ed,  and  the  materials  put  together  with  so  much  judgment  and  artistic  skill  that 
taste  and  the  sense  of  completeness  are  entirely  satisfied. — N.  Y.  Daily  Times. 

A  most  important  and  valuable  contribution  to  the  historical  and  political  lit 
erature  of  the  United  States.  All  publicists  and  students  of  public  law  will  be 
grateful  to  Mr.  Curtis  for  the  diligence  and  assiduity  with  which  he  has  wrought 
out  the  great  mine  of  diplomatic  lore  in  which  the  foundations  of  the  American 
Constitution  are  laid,  and  for  the  light  he  has  thrown  on  his  wide  and  arduous 
subject.—  London  Horning  Chronicle. 

To  trace  the  history  of  the  formation  of  the  Constitution,  and  explain  the  cir 
cumstances  of  the  time  and  country  out  of  which  its  various  provisions  grew,  is  a 
task  worthy  of  the  highest  talent.  To  have  performed  that  task  in  a  satisfacto 
ry  manner  is  an  achievement  with  which  an  honorable  ambition  may  well  be 
gratified.  We  can  honestly  say  that  in  our  opinion  Mr.  Curtis  has  fairly  won 
this  distinction.—^".  Y.  Courier  and  Enquirer. 

We  have  seen  no  history  which  surpasses  it  in  the  essential  qualities  of  a 
standard  work  destined  to  hold  a  permanent  place  in  the  impartial  judgment  of 
future  generations. — Boston  Traveler. 

Should  the  second  volume  sustain  the  character  of  the  first,  we  hazard  nothing 
in  claiming  for  the  entire  publication  the  character  of  a  standard  work.  It  wiS 
furnish  the  only  sure  guide  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Constitution,  by  unfolding 
historically  the  wants  it  was  intended  to  supply,  and  the  evils  which  it  was  in 
tended  to  remedy. — Boston  Daily  Advertiser. 

This  volume  is  an  important  contribution  to  our  constitutional  and  historical 
literature.  *  *  *  Every  true  friend  of  the  Constitution  will  gladly  welcome  it. 
The  author  has  presented  a  narrative  clear  and  interesting.  It  evinces  caroful 
research,  skillful  handling  of  material,  lucid  statement,  and  a  desire  to  write  in 
a  tone  and  manner  worthy  of  the  great  theme. — Boston  Post. 

Published  by  HARPER  &  BROTHERS, 

Franklin  Square,  New  York. 


*/  HAEPEB  &  BBOTHEBB  will  send  the  above  Work  by  Mail,  postage  paid  (for 
any  distance  in  the  United  States  under  3000  miles),  on  receipt  of  the  Money. 


They  do  honor  to  American  Literature,  and  would  do 
honor  to  the  Literature  of  any  Country  in  the  World." 


THE   RISE    OF 

THE    DUTCH    REPUBLIC. 


BY  JOHN  LOTHKOP  MOTLEY. 

New  Edition.  With  a  Portrait  of  WILLIAM  OF  ORANGE.  3  vols. 
8vo,  Muslin,  $6  00;  Sheep,  $6  75;  Half  Calf  antique,  $9  00; 
Half  Calf,  extra  gilt,  $10  50. 

We  regard  this  work  as  the  best  contribution  to  modern  history  that  has  yet 
been  made  by  an  American.  —  Methodist  Quarterly  Review. 

The  "History  of  the  Dutch  Republic"  is  a  great  gift  to  us;  but  the  heart  and 
earnestness  that  beat  through  all  its  pages  are  greater,  for  they  give  us  most 
timely  inspiration  to  vindicate  the  true  ideas  of  our  country,  and  to  compose  au 
able  history  of  our  own.  —  Christian  Examiner  (Boston). 

This  work  bears  on  its  face  the  evidences  of  scholarship  and  research.  The 
arrangement  is  clear  and  effective  ;  the  style  energetic,  lively,  and  often  brilliant. 
*  *  *  Mr.  Motley's  instructive  volumes  will,  we  trust,  have  a  circulation  commen 
surate  with  their  interest  and  value.—  Protestant  Episcopal  Quarterly  Review. 

To  the  illustration  of  this  most  interesting  period  Mr.  Motley  has  brought  the 
matured  powers  of  a  vigorous  and  brilliant  mind,  and  the  abundant  fruits  of  pa 
tient  and  judicious  study  and  deep  reflection.  The  result  is,  one  of  the  most 
important  contributions  to  historical  literature  that  have  been  made  in  this  coun 
try.  —  North  American  Review. 

We  would  conclude  this  notice  by  earnestly  recommending  our  readers  to  pro 
cure  for  themselves  this  truly  great  and  admirable  work,  by  the  production  of 
which  the  auther  has  conferred  no  less  honor  upon  his  country  than  he  has  won 
praise  and  fame  for  himself,  and  than  which,  we  can  assure  them,  they  can  find 
nothing  more  attractive  or  interesting  within  the  compass  of  modern  literature. 
—  Evangelical  Review. 

It  is  not  often  that  we  have  the  pleasure  of  commending  to  the  attention  of  the 
lover  of  books  a  work  of  such  extraordinary  aud  unexceptionable  excellence  as 
this  one.  —  Universalist  Quarterly  Review. 

There  are  an  elevation  and  a  classic  polish  in  these  volumes,  and  a  felicity  of 
grouping  and  of  portraiture,  which  invest  the  subject  with  the  attractions  of  a 
living  and  stirring  episode  in  the  grand  historic  drama.—  Southern  Methodist 
Quarterly  Review. 

The  author  writes  with  a  genial  glow  and  love  of  his  subject—  Presbyterian 
Quarterly  Review. 

Mr.  Motley  is  a  sturdy  Republican  and  a  hearty  Protestant.  His  style  is  live 
ly  and  picturesque,  and  his  work  is  an  honor  and  an  important  accession  to  our 
national  literature.  —  Church  Review. 

Mr.  Motley's  work  is  an  important  one,  the  result  of  profound  research,  sincere 
convictions,  sound  principles,  and  manly  sentiments;  and  even  those  who  are 
most  familiar  with  the  history  of  the  period  will  find  in  it  a  fresh  and  vivid  ad 
dition  to  their  previous  knowledge.  It  does  honor  to  American  literature,  and 
would  do  honor  to  the  literature  of  any  country  in  the  world.  —  Edinburgh  Re 
view. 

A  serious  chasm  in  English  historical  literature  has  been  (by  this  book)  very 
remarkably  filled.  *  *  *  A  history  as  complete  as  industry  and  genius  can  make 
it  now  lies  before  us,  of  the  first  twenty  years  of  the  revolt  of  the  United  Prov 
inces.  *  *  *  All  the  essentials  of  a  great  writer  Mr.  Motley  eminently  possesses. 
His  mind  is  broad,  his  industry  unwearied.  In  power  of  dramatic  description 
no  modern  historian,  except,  perhaps,  Mr.  Carlyle,  surpasses  him,  and  in  analy 
sis  of  character  he  is  elaborate  and  distinct  —  Westminster  Review. 


2    MOTLEY'S  RISE  OF  THE  DUTCH  REPUBLIC. 

It  is  a  work  of  real  historical  value,  the  result  of  accurate  criticism,  written 
in  a  liberal  spirit,  and  from  first  to  last  deeply  interesting. — Athenceum. 

The  style  is  excellent,  clear,  vivid,  eloquent ;  and  the  industry  with  which 
original  sources  have  been  investigated,  and  through  which  new  light  has  been 
shed  over  perplexed  incidents  and  characters,  entitles  Mr.  Motley  to  a  high  rank 
in  the  literature  of  an  age  peculiarly  rich  in  history.—  North  British  Review. 

It  abounds  in  new  information,  and,  as  a  first  work,  commands  a  very  cordial 
recognition,  not  merely  of  the  promise  it  gives,  but  of  the  extent  and  importance 
of  the  labor  actually  performed  on  it. — London  Examiner. 

Mr.  Motley's  "History"  is  a  work  of  which  any  country  might  be  proud. — 
Press  (London). 

Mr.  Motley's  History  will  be  a  standard  book  of  reference  in  historical  litera 
ture. — London  Literary  Gazette. 

Mr.  Motley  has  searched  the  whole  range  of  historical  documents  necessary  to 
the  composition  of  his  work. — London  Leader. 

This  is  really  a  great  work.  It  belongs  to  the  class  of  books  in  which  we 
range  our  Grotes,  Milmans,  Merivales,  and  Macaulays,  as  the  glories  of  English 
literature  in  the  department  of  history.  *  *  *  Mr.  Motley's  gifts  as  a  historical 
writer  are  among  the  highest  and  rarest.—  Nonconformist  (London). 

Mr.  Motley's  volumes  will  well  repay  perusal.  *  *  *  For  his  learning,  his  liberal 
tone,  and  his  generous  enthusiasm,  we  heartily  commend  him,  and  bid  him  good 
speed  for  the  remainer  of  his  interesting  and  heroic  narrative. — Saturday  Review. 

The  story  is  a  noble  one,  and  is  worthily  treated.  *  *  *  Mr.  Motley  has  had  the 
patience  to  unravel,  with  unfailing  perseverance,  the  thousand  intricate  plots  of 
the  adversaries  of  the  Prince  of  Orange ;  but  the  details  and  the  literal  extracts 
which  he  has  derived  from  original  documents,  and  transferred  to  his  pages, 
give  a  truthful  color  and  a  picturesque  effect,  which  are  especially  charming. — 
London  Daily  News. 

M.  Lothrop  Motley  dans  son  magnifique  tableau  de  la  formation  de  notre  Re- 
publique. — G.  GROEN  VAN  PRLNSTEEEE. 

Our  accomplished  countryman,  Mr.  J.  Lothrop  Motley,  who,  during  the  last 
five  years,  for  the  better  prosecution  of  his  labors,  has  established  his  residence 
In  the  neighborhood  of  the  scenes  of  his  narrative.  No  one  acquainted  with  the 
fine  powers  of  mind  possessed  by  this  scholar,  and  the  earnestness  with  which  he 
has  devoted  himself  to  the  task,  can  doubt  that  he  will  do  full  justice  to  his  im 
portant  but  difficult  subject.— W.  H.  PBESCOTT. 

The  production  of  such  a  work  as  this  astonishes,  while  it  gratifies  the  pride 
of  the  American  reader. — N.  Y.  Observer. 

The  "Rise  of  the  Dutch  Republic1'  at  once,  and  by  acclamation,  takes  its 
place  by  the  "  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,"  as  a  work  which,  wheth 
er  for  research,  substance,  or  style,  will  never  be  superseded. — N.  Y.  Albion. 

A  work  upon  which  all  who  read  the  English  language  may  congratulate 
themselves. — Neio  Yorker  Handels  Zeitung. 

Mr.  Motley's  place  is  now  (alluding  to  this  book)  with  Hallam  and  Lord  Ma- 
hon,  Alison  and  Macaulay  in  the  Old  Country,  and  with  Washington  Irving, 
Prescott,  and  Bancroft  in  this.—  N.  Y.  Times. 

THE  authority,  in  the  English  tongue,  for  the  history  of  the  period  and  people 
to  which  it  refers.—  N.  Y.  Courier  and  Enquirer. 

This  work  at  once  places  the  author  on  the  list  of  American  historians  which 
has  been  so  signally  illustrated  by  the  names  of  Irving,  Prescott,  Bancroft,  and 
Hildreth.— Boston  Times. 

The  work  is  a  noble  one,  and  a  most  desirable  acquisition  to  our  historical  lit 
erature. — Mobile  Advertiser. 

Such  a  work  is  an  honor  to  its  author,  to  his  country,  and  to  the  age  in.  which 
it  was  written. — Ohio  Farmer. 


Published  ly  HARPER  &  BROTHERS, 

Franklin  Square,  New  York. 


HAEPKB  &  BBOTHEBS  will  send  the  above  Work  by  Mail  (postage  paid  (for  any 
distance  in  the  United  States  under  8000  miles),  on  receipt  of  the  Money. 


"A  Grand  Book— an  Honor  to  America," 


THE 

PHYSICAL    GEOGRAPHY 

OP 

THE     SEA. 

By  LIEUT.  M.  F.  MAUKY,  U.  S.  K 

With  Wood-cuts  and  Charts.     New  Edition.    Enlarged  and  Im 
proved.     8vo,  Muslin,  $1  50. 


Notices  of  the  Press. 

Lieutenant  Maury,  in  his  fascinating  book. — BlackwoocCs  Magazine. 

We  err  greatly  if  Lieut.  Maury' s  book  will  not  hereafter  be  classed  with  the 
works  of  the  great  men  who  have  taken  the  lead  in  extending  and  improving 
knowledge  and  art ;  his  book  displays,  in  a  remarkable  degree,  like  the  "  ad 
vancement  of  learning"  and  the  natural  history  of  Buffon,  profound  research 
and  magnificent  imagination.  —London  Illustrated  News. 

We  have  not  met  for  a  long  period  with  a  book  which  is  at  once  so  minute 
and  profound  in  research,  and  so  plain,  manly,  and  eloquent  in  expression.  *  *  * 
At  almost  every  page  there  are  proofs  that  Lieut.  Maury  is  as  pious  as  he  is 
learned.  *  *  *  This  is  but  one  passage  of  a  book  which  will  make  a  sensation  not 
like  that  or  equal  to  that  made  by  "  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,"  but  a  durable  and  ex 
panding  impression  in  the  general  mind,  and  hereafter  Lieut.  Maury  will  be  re 
membered  among  the  great  scientific  men  of  the  age,  and  the  benefactors  of 
mankind. — London  Economist. 

We  have  scarcely  ever  met  with  a  work  that  has  given  us  more  instruction 
and  pleasure.  Under  the  author's  clear  and  familiar  treatment,  the  Ocean  no 
longer  seems  a  mere  mass  of  waters,  unvaried  except  by  storms  and  tides;  it 
becomes  a  living  thing,  as  it  were,  an  immense  vital  organ,  composed  of  a  won 
derful  congeries  of  powers,  and  performing  a  wonderful  part  in  the  natural  econ 
omy  of  our  terraqueous  globe.  Its  currents  and  drifts,  the  temperature  of  its 
different  parts,  the  depths  of  its  several  basins,  its  contents,  the  mountains,  table 
lands,  and  profound  valleys  that  occupy  its  bottom,  its  action  on  the  atmosphere 
and  the  counteraction,  its  processes  of  evaporization,  the  courses  of  winds  bear 
ing  its  vapors  to  the  regions  where  they  are  precipitated  in  rain  or  snow,  the 
great  maritime  routes  across  its  expanse,  and  how  they  are  determined  by  oce 
anic  and  atmospherical  phenomena — all  are  set  forth  in  a  plain,  vivid,  and  very 
impressive  manner.  —  Universalist  Quarterly  Review. 

A  grand  book,  an  honor  to  America.  —Presbyterian  Quarterly  Review. 

Whoever  may  wish  a  perfect  treat  among  the  novelties  of  science,  will  find  it 
in  the  "Physical  Geography  of  the  Sea..11 —Methodist  Quarterly  Review. 

Pre-eminently  popular  and  practical.  Some  of  the  theories  of  this  ingenious 
book  have  already  brought  thousands,  or  even  millions  of  dollars  into  the  hands 
of  commerce.  As  a  contribution  to  science,  and,  above  all,  to  popular  and  prac 
tical  knowledge,  hardly  enough  praise  can  be  uttered. — N.  Y.  Daily  Times. 

Lieut.  Maury's  eulogy  will  be  found,  like  that  of  the  discoverer  of  the  compass, 
in  the  practice  of  every  future  navigator,  and  his  discoveries  will  kindle  a  pride 
in  generations  to  come  of  his  countrymen,  akin  to  that  we  feel  in  the  achieve 
ments  of  science  of  Franklin  and  Fulton. — Journal  of  Commerce. 

Published  by  HARPER    &    BROTHERS, 

Franklin    Square,  New  York. 


*/  HABPKB  &  BBOTHBRS  will  send  the  above  Work  by  Mail,  postage  paid  (for 
any  distauce  in  the  United  States  under  3000  miles),  on  receipt  of  $1  50. 


THE 

LAND  AND  THE  BOOK; 

OB, 

BIBLICAL  ILLUSTRATIONS  DRAWN  FROM  THE  MANNERS 

AND  CUSTOMS,  THE  SCENES  AND  SCENERY  OF 

THE  HOLY  LAND. 

BY  W.  M.  THOMSON,  D.D., 

Twenty-five  Years  a  Missionary  of  the  A.B.C.F.M.  in  Syria  and  Palestine. 

With  two  elaborate  Maps  of  Palestine,  an  accurate  Plan  of  Jeru 
salem,  and  several  hundred  Engravings  representing  the  Scenery, 
Topography,  and  Productions  of  the  Holy  Land,  and  the  Cos 
tumes,  Manners,  and  Habits  of  the  People.  Two  elegant  Large 
12mo  Volumes,  Muslin,  $3  50 ;  Half  Calf,  $5  20. 

The  Land  of  the  Bible  is  part  of  the  Divine  Revelation.  It  bears 
testimony  essential  to  faith,  and  gives  lessons  invaluable  in  exposi 
tion.  Both  have  been  written  all  over  the  fair  face  of  Palestine, 
and  deeply  graven  there  by  the  finger  of  God  in  characters  of  living 
light.  To  collect  this  testimony  and  popularize  these  lessons  for 
the  biblical  student  of  every  age  and  class  is  the  prominent  design 
of  this  work.  For  twenty-five  years  the  Author  has  been  permitted 
to  read  the  Book  by  the  light  which  the  Land  sheds  upon  it ;  and 
he  now  hands  over  this  friendly  torch  to  those  who  have  not  been 
thus  favored.  In  this  attempt  the  pencil  has  been  employed  to  aid 
the  pen.  A  large  number  of  pictorial  illustrations  are  introduced, 
many  of  them  original,  and  all  giving  a  genuine  and  true  represen 
tation  of  things  in  the  actual  Holy  Land  of  the  present  day.  They 
are  not  fancy  sketches  of  imaginary  scenes  thrown  in  to  embellish 
the  page,  but  pictures  of  living  manners,  studies  of  sacred  topogra 
phy,  or  exponents  of  interesting  biblical  allusions,  which  will  add 
greatly  to  the  value  of  the  work. 

Published  ly  HARPER  &  BROTHERS, 

Franklin  Square,  New  York. 


&  BBOTHEBS  will  send  the  above  Work  by  Mail,  postage  paid,  to  any 
part  of  the  United  States,  on  receipt  of  the  Money. 


Works  by  Thomas  Carlyle. 


History  of  Friedrich  the  Second, 

called  Frederic  the  Great.  4  vols.  12mo,  Muslin, 
$1  25  each.  Yols.  I.  and  II.,  with  Portraits  and 
Maps,  just  ready. 

The  French  Revolution, 

A  History.  Newly  Eevised  by  the  Author,  with 
Index,  &c.  2  vols.  12mo,  Muslin,  $2  00 ;  Half 
Calf,  $3  70. 

Oliver  Cromwell's  Letters  and  Speeches, 

Including  the  Supplement  to  the  First  Edition. 
"With  Elucidations  and  Connecting  Narrative.  2 
vols.  12mo,  Muslin,  $2  00 ;  Half  Calf,  $3  70. 

Past  and  Present, 

Chartism  and  Sartor  Eesartus.  A  New  Edition. 
Complete  in  1  vol.  12mo,  Muslin,  $1  00  ;  Half 
Calf,  $1  85. 


Published  ly  HARPER  &  BROTHERS, 

Franklin  Square,  New  York. 


HARPER  &  BROTHERS  will  send  either  of  the  above  Works 
by  Mail,  postage  paid  (for  any  distance  in  the  United  States  undei 
3000  miles),  on  receipt  of  the  Money. 


HABPER  &  BBOTHEBS  will  send  either  of  the  following  Works  by  Mail,  post 
age  paid  (for  any  distance  in  the  United  States  under  3000  miles),  on  receipt  of 
the  Money.  % . 


DICKENS  AND  BONNER'S 
CHILD'S    HISTORIES. 


BOOKS  FOR  THE  FIRESIDE,  THE  SCHOOL-ROOM,  AND  THE  FAMILY 
AND  SCHOOL  LIBRARY.     COMPRISING 

A  Child's  History  of  England.  By  CHARLES  DICKENS. 
2  vols.  IGmo,  Muslin,  60  cents. 

A  Child's  History  of  the  United  States.  By  JOHN 
BONNER.  Illustrated.  2  vols.  16mo,  Muslin,  $L  00. 

A  Child's  History  of  Rome.  By  JOHN  BONNER.  Illus 
trated.  2  vols.  16mo,  Muslin,  $1  00. 

A  Child's  History  of  Greece.  By  JOHN  BONNER.  Illus 
trated.  2  vols.  16mo,  Muslin,  $1  00. 

These  works  present  the  leading  facts  of  history  in  the  form  of  stories,  which 
children  will  read  for  the  pleasure  they  afford.  The  histories  of  Rome  and 
Greece  are  written  from  an  American  point  of  view. 

Capital  little  volumes.  Though  written  in  a  simple  and  artless  style  to  cap 
tivate  juvenile  students  of  history,  they  are  not  devoid  of  a  philosophical  spirit 
to  prompt  reflection. — Christian  Register. 

For  writings  intended  for  juvenile  readers  Mr.  Bonner's  style  is  a  model — 
sweet,  flowing,  animated,  with  a  liberal  use  of  colloquial  expressions. — JV.  1*". 
Tribune. 

Good  books  for  the  school  and  family  library. — N.  Y.  Observer. 

History  presented  in  such  a  shape  as  to  possess  all  the  charms  of  a  romance. — 
New  Orleans  Crescent. 

Bonner's  Child's  History  of  Rome  is  the  best  in  the  market  for  young  readers. 
— Church  Journal. 

A  remarkably  successful  effort  at  adapting  a  historical  narrative  to  the  tastes 
of  youthful  readers. — Presbyterian. 

Mr.  Bonner  writes  with  freedom  and  force,  avoiding  verbosity  and  pedantry, 
and  a  child  of  five  or  a  man  of  seventy  can  alike  understand  his  meaning. — X. 
Y.  Daily  Times. 

Written  with  simplicity,  and  in  a  manner  to  engage  the  attention  of  youthful 
readers.— N.  Y.  Evening  Post. 

We  welcome  these  volumes  with  most  sincere  pleasure.  They  have  a  perma 
nent  value,  and  are  fitting  companions  for  that  beautiful  Child's  History  of  En 
gland,  by  Dickens.— St.  Louis  Republican. 

The  press  can  not  teem  with  too  many  just  such  books. — Savannah  Georgian. 

Mr.  Bonner  excels  as  a  historian  for  the  young.  His  simple,  vigorous  style, 
absence  of  profound  reflections,  and  power  of  condensing,  by  grasping  the  prom 
inent  points  and  leaving  out  minor  incidents,  admirably  fit  him  for  a  task  like 
the  present.— .Boston  Journal. 

Published  by  HARPER    &    BROTHERS, 

Franklin    Square,   New  York. 


HARPER  &  BKOTIIEKB  will  send  the  following  Work  by  Mail,  postage  paid  (for 
any  distance  in  the  United  States  under  3000  miles),  on  receipt  of  the  Money. 


VAUX'S  ARCHITECTURE. 


VILLAS  AND  COTTAGES :  A  Series  of  Designs  Prepared  for 
Execution  in  the  United  States.  By  CALVERT  VAUX,  Archt., 
(late  DOWNING  &  VAUX),  Newburgh  on  the  Hudson.  Illus 
trated  by  300  Engravings.  Sixth  Edition.  8vo,  Muslin,  $2  00. 

Unquestionably  the  best  and  handsomest  work  of  the  kind  ever  published.— 
Spirit  of  the  Times. 

Every  idea,  notion,  fancy,  plan,  or  style  in  rural  architecture  that  is  worth 
any  thing  is  here  illustrated,  and  all  the  reader  and  rural  embryo  cottage  or  villa 
builder  has  to  do  is  to  choose  for  himself. — Protestant  Churchman. 

We  would  be  very  happy  to  make  the  merits,  the  attractiveness,  and  value  of 
this  work  so  patent  to  our  readers,  that  from  all  parts  of  the  United  States  they 
would  order  it  for  immediate  use.  It  is  one  of  the  handsomest  specimens  of 
book-making — beautiful  paper,  splendid  typography,  handsome  cuts,  and  draw 
ings  (three  hundred  engravings'),  and  is,  therefore,  an  ornamental  as  well  as  useful 
volume.  Such  a  book  as  this  must  be  invaluable  to  those  who  desire  to  suit 
themselves  with  a  plan  before  beginning  to  build,  who  would  count  the  cost  to 
see  the  end  from  the  beginning ;  and  by  sending  $2  00  to  HARPER  &  BROTHERS, 
they  will  secure  this  volume,  worth  hundreds  to  them,  if  they  have  no  other 
means  of  obtaining  the  same  instruction. — JV.  Y.  Observer. 

An  admirable  union  of  good  judgment  and  refined  taste.  Designs  and  de 
scriptions  are  given  for  every  grade  of  rural  abode,  from  the  log-house  up  to  the 
splendid  villa,  and  ever  with  an  eye  to  the  most  perfect  combination  of  taste  and 
convenience.  The  style  as  well  as  the  sentiment  of  the  book  is  very  charming, 
and  the  mechanical  execution  admirable. — N.  Y.  Courier  and  Enquirer. 

No  one  designing  to  build  a  cottage  or  villa  residence  should  enter  upon  the 
enterprise  without  first  securing  a  copy  of  this  work. — Brooklyn  Eagle. 

It  should  be  in  the  hands  of  the  cit  who  wisely  contemplates  the  establishment 
of  a  retired  homestead,  and  of  the  ill-educated  builder,  who  fancies  himself  an 
accomplished  architect. — Albion. 

Every  way  suited  for  the  purpose  to  which  it  is  devoted,  of  improving  domes 
tic  architecture  and  increasing  the  comforts  of  our  homes. — N.  Y.  Chronicle. 

One  of  the  most  useful  and  beautiful  works  that  have  been  produced  to  supply 
the  demand  for  information  in  regard  to  the  modern  improvements  in  domestic 
architecture. — N.  Y.  Commercial  Advertiser. 

It  will  become  a  standard  authority  and  favorite  guide,  as  well  as  an  ornament 
to  the  libraries  and  centre-tables  of  the  land. — Boston  Transcript. 

Decidedly  the  best  work  on  villas  and  cottages  that  has  yet  appeared  in  this 
country. — Louisville  Courier. 

The  book  itself  is  a  luxury  of  type,  paper,  and  engravings.  The  mere  turning 
of  its  leaves  is  a  lesson  in  taste,  and  the  wide  diffusion  of  its  principles  and  mod 
els  would  beautify  the  land. — Jr.  Y.  Independent. 

The  designs  are  exquisite,  and  the  explanations  lucid  and  comprehensive. — 
New  Orleans  Bee. 

The  designs  are  on  every  scale,  from  the  most  humble  cottage  to  the  most  el 
egant  villa. — Providence  Journal. 

The  designs  ai-e  tasteful,  and  are  suited  to  all  localities,  and  the  means  of  the 
most  humble  as  well  as  the  purse  of  the  millionaire. — Buffalo  Courier. 

We  wish  a  copy  of  it  were  in  the  hands  of  every  architect,  and  of  every  one 
who  proposes  to  build. — Wisconsin  Paper. 

A  book  which  should  be  possessed  by  every  architect,  builder,  and  gentleman. 
— N.  O.  Crescent. 

There  is  no  work  on  cottage  and  villa  architecture  superior  to  this. — Ladies'1 
Repository. 

No  one  who  has  the  means  to  make  a  home  worthy  of  the  name  should  begin 
to  build  without  carefully  examining  it. — Church  Review. 

Published  by  HARPER  &  BROTHERS, 

Franklin  Square,  New  York. 


'0  OTatalcrgue. 


A  NEW  DESCRIPTIVE  CATALOGUE  OF  HARPER  &  BROTHERS' 
PUBLICATIONS,  with  an  Index  and  Classified  Table  of  Contents,  is 
now  ready  for  Distribution,  and  may  be  obtained  gratuitously  on 
application  to  the  Publishers  personally,  or  by  letter  inclosing  Six 
CENTS  in  Postage  Stamps. 

The  attention  of  gentlemen,  in  town  or  country,  designing  to  form 
Libraries  or  enrich  their  Literary  Collections,  is  respectfully  invited 
to  this  Catalogue,  which  will  be  found  to  comprise  a  large  propor 
tion  of  the  standard  and  most  esteemed  works  in  English  Literature 

—COMPREHENDING     MORE    THAN   TWO    THOUSAND    VOLUMES which 

are  offered,  in  most  instances,  at  less  than  one  half  the  cost  of  sim 
ilar  productions  in  England. 

To  Librarians  and  others  connected  with  Colleges,  Schools,  &c., 
svho  may  not  have  access  to  a  reliable  guide  in  forming  the  true 
estimate  of  literary  productions,  it  is  believed  this  Catalogue  will 
prove  especially  valuable  as  a  manual  of  reference. 

To  prevent  disappointment,  it  is  suggested  that,  whenever  books 
can  not  be  obtained  through  any  bookseller  or  local  agent,  applica 
tions  with  remittance  should  be  addressed  direct  to  the  Publishers, 
which  will  be  promptly  attended  to. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 


This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


RECEIVED 

AUG23'66-4PM 

LOAM  DEPT. 


RECEIVE 


APR     9  1978 


General  Library 


YB  37453 


